Order on Board

11.09.2024

1) The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following reliefs:-

“10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to allow this petition and the impugned termination order dated 26.3.2014 passed by the respondent, placed as Annexure P/1 may kindly be quashed.

10.2 Any other relief(s) that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant in the facts and circumstances of this case.”

2) Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Office Superintendent in Sainik School Ambikapur, District Surguja vide order dated 02.03.2013 on probation for a period of one year. He was working with due sincerity and honesty. He would further submit that according to the office report of the respondent, the work and performance of the petitioner was remarkable and praiseworthy and the same is evident from the note-sheets dated 27.02.2014 and 28.02.2014. He would further argue that the name of the petitioner was recommended for confirmation vide note-sheet dated 27.02.2014 after completion of one year. He would also submit that surprisingly the petitioner received an order dated 26.03.2014 whereby the petitioner’s services were terminated on the ground that the services of the petitioner are no longer required in the school. According to paragraph 4 of the terms and conditions of the order of appointment, the salary of one month was paid to the petitioner in advance. He would further state that the order of termination issued by the respondent was punitive in nature and the same is evident from the return filed by the respondent. He would also state that with regard to mental harassment, a complaint was made by one Ashok Kumar Saini on 26.02.2014 before the Principal of the School against the petitioner. He would contend that an enquiry was conducted by a teacher of the Institution namely, Mr. M.K. Tripathi on 26.03.2014 behind the back of the petitioner and on the same date, the order of termination was passed. He further contends that another enquiry was conducted by the same person on the same date.

He would also contend that a complaint was made by the petitioner against Bijay Kumar Pandey, Madhu Sudan Dash and Ashok Kumar Saini and they made frivolous complaints against the petitioner and cognizance was taken by the respondent on 26.03.2014 itself. It is argued by counsel for the petitioner that as the order of termination is punitive in nature, the respondent ought to have afforded an opportunity of hearing. He would further argue that inquiries were conducted behind the back of the petitioner, therefore, the order of termination is liable to be quashed. He would also submit that the procedure given in Sainik School Society Rules for inflicting punishment has not been complied with.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60, Captain Pramod Kumar Bajaj vs. Union of India and Another, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 234, Swati Priyadarshini vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors., Civil Appeal No. 9758 of 2024 and U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. vs.

Brijesh Kumar and Anr, S.L.P (C) NO.10546 OF 2019.

4) On the other hand, Ms. Anmol Sharma, counsel appearing for the respondent would oppose the submissions made by counsel for the petitioner. She would submit that the petitioner was a probationer and there were serious allegations against him. She would further submit that inquiries were conducted against the petitioner and the allegations were found proven, therefore, the decision was taken to terminate his services. She would also submit that the services were terminated according to the conditions mentioned in the order of appointment. She would further contend that the probationer can be removed at any point in time before confirmation of services if his services are not