Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi This the 25^th day of November, 2025 Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) Hon’ble Shri B. Anand, Member (A)

Hosiar Singh Aged about 37 years S/o Sh. Rajender Singh R/o Village - Selothi, P.O. - Aswata Teh. & Distt. - Palwal , Haryana-121102 Post: TGT Sanskrit ... Applicant (By Advocate: Mr. Anuj Aggarwal, Mr. Shubham Bahl and Mr. Nikhil Pawar)

Versus

1. Directorate of Education Through the Director of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Old Secretariat Building, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054

2. Hauz Rani - Sr. Sec. SKV (Raja Ram Mohan Roy) School Through Head of School

124, Hauz Rani Rd, H-Block, Hauz Rani, Malviya Nagar, New Delhi, Delhi 110017 3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary Service Department Branch, 7 th Level, B-Wing , Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi-110002 ... Respondents (By Advocate: Mr. H.A. Khan)

O R D E R (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. Pleadings in the O.A. are complete.

2. With the consent of the learned counsels for the parties, the O.A. is taken up for consideration and disposal.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

4. By way of the present O.A. filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the communication/order dated 04.09.2024 vide which the applicant has been terminated from service while working as Guest Teacher under the respondents.

5. It is undisputed that the applicant was engaged as Guest Teacher (TGT Sanskrit) during the academic year 2024-25 vide communication dated 02.07.2024 on purely adhoc basis and as a stop-gap arrangement.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the impugned order of termination of services of the applicant appears to be, prima facie, a simpliciter order, however, the same is punitive and stigmatic in view of the averments made by the respondents in their counter reply. He further submits that as the impugned order is punitive and stigmatic, without holding any inquiry and affording the applicant any opportunity of defence, the same is unsustainable in law. Learned counsel for the applicant further submits that the claim of the applicant is squarely covered by various judgments of this Tribunal including one order/judgment by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal consisting one of us (Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)) titled Parveen Kumar and Ors. Vs. Directorate of Education and Ors. bearing O.A. No. 1463/2020 dated 03.09.2021

7. On the other hand, Mr. H.A. Khan, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant by inviting our attention to the assertions made by the respondents in para 4 of the counter reply. He submits that the concerned HOS/ Principal of the school received complaint form 8 students and their parents regarding objectionable behavior of the applicant while he was working under the respondents. Considering the sensitivity of the matter, necessary meeting was convened and it was decided for an internal inquiry at the school level and the matter was also reported to 1098 Helpline. He submits that an appropriate written complaint was also made to the SHO Malviya Nagar, New Delhi. The internal committee which was appointed by the respondents interacted with the 8 students and found that the complaints were genuine. It was recommended by the committee that keeping in view the safety of girl students as well as to avoid future occurrence of such cases the service of the applicant was terminated vide the impugned communication.

8. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the complaints, the matter was examined by a committee formed by the respondents and in view of the adverse report from such committee, the respondents have terminated the service of the applicant.

9. Now the issue which arises in the present O.A. is whether such impugned order is sustainable in law or not.

10. This