Gauhati High Court
WP(C)/1185/2016 on 20 July, 2021
Page No.# 1/9
GAHC010009682016
Judgment & order delivered on: 20th July, 2021.
IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM & ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
WRIT PETITION NO.1185 OF 2016
1. The Deputy Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity,
Regional Office, Temple Road,
Barik Point, Lachumiere,
Shilong-793001, Meghalaya.
2. The Assistant Commissioner,
Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity,
Regional Office, Temple Road,
Barik Point, Lachumiere,
Shilong-793001, Meghalaya
........Petitioners
-Versus-
1. Miss Shabnam Sultana,
Daughter of Md. Nasiruddin,
Resident of Chitti Kauri Lane,
Lodi Katra, Patna City,
Dist- Patna, Bihar- 800008
2. Union of India,
Through Secretary to the Government of India,
Page No.# 2/9
Ministry of Human Resource Development
Department of Education,
New Delhi- 110001
3. Sri D. Gunasekharan
Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Yetapaka,
East Godaveri, Andhra Pradesh,
PIN-533352
........Respondents
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SUDHANSHU DHULIA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANASH RANJAN PATHAK
Advocate for the petitioners : Mrs. RS Choudhury
Advocate for the Respondent No.1 : Mr. P Mahanta,
Amicus Curiae
JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)
(Sudhanshu Dhulia, CJ)
The matter is taken up through video conferencing.
2. Heard Ms. RS Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard
Mr. P Mahanta, learned Amicus Curiae.
3. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner who is the Deputy
Commissioner of Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, challenging the order of the
Central Administrative Tribunal dated 17.12.2015 passed in Original Application
No.97/2008 by which the Original Application of the respondent No.1 herein was
allowed directing that the respondent No.1 be reinstated in service as a Trained
Graduate Teacher (TGT) English.
4. This case has a long and chequered history and this is second round of
litigation before this Court. The facts of the case being important, needs to be
Page No.# 3/9
stated first.
The respondent No.1 was appointed as TGT English teacher after she
was duly selected. This was by an appointment order dated 07.06.2006 where
she was asked to join as TGT English Teacher in Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya at
Banduar, Udaipur, South Tripura. There is absolutely no dispute about the fact
that the appointment of the respondent No.1 was initially for two years on
probation. The condition also stipulated that the two years of probation could be
extended for further period of one year, and the authority concerned was
empowered to terminate the services of the respondent No.1 at any point of
time during the period of probation, without assigning any reasons. The
appointment order dated 07.06.2006 clearly stipulates the aforesaid condition,
which reads as under:
"2. You will be initially on probation for a period of two years from the date of your
joining which may further be extended at the discretion of the competent authority.
Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent
authority will render you liable to discharge from service. Further during the period
of probation your service can be dispensed with by the Samiti without assigning any
reasons. While on probation, you will be required to give one month's notice of
resignation in case you leave the Samiti."
(emphasis provided)
5. While the respondent No.1 was serving as a TGT English Teacher during
the period of probation at Navodaya Vidyalaya, it appears that she was
reminded from time to time about the lapses on her part in performing as a
teacher. In that regard, there are three letters dated 23.11.2006, 10.08.2007
and 15.08.2007 which are on record. It is again an admitted fact that
performance of the candidates who are on probation is evaluated from time to
time by the Inspector of Class Room Teaching and Learning and such evaluation
report is forwarded to the concerned higher authority in Delhi. In the present
Page No.# 4/9
case, the evaluation report of 62 candidates/teaching staff, including the
respondent No.1, were forwarded by the concerned Principals along with their
remarks. In majority of the cases, the DPC recommended either confirmation of
service or extension of the probation period, but in four cases, including the
case of the respondent No.1, the DPC was of the opinion that due to their poor
performance, their services should be terminated. Consequent to the said
report, a termination order (Annexure-8) was passed on 11.02.2008, which
reads as under:
"OFFICE ORDER
In pursuance of Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary
Service) Rules 1965, the undersigned hereby terminates the services of Ms. S. Sultana,
TGT (Eng.), JNV-South Tripura, with immediate effect.
(M.L. SHARMA)
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER"
6. This order was challenged by the respondent No.1 before the Central
Administrative Tribunal at Guwahati where the respondent No.1 inter alia raised
allegation of bias against the Principal of the school and also made allegation
which is in the nature of sexual harassment. The Tribunal came to the
conclusion that the impugned termination order dated 11.02.2008 had been
passed due to malafide reasons and in such matters even a probationary officer
is protected under the law and, having come to such conclusion, the Tribunal
vide order dated 09.09.2009 set aside the order of termination. The said order
of the Tribunal dated 09.09.2009 was challenged by the present petitioner in the
first round of litigation viz. WP(C) 4158/2009, before this Court and the Division
Bench of this Court came to the conclusion that the allegation of sexual
harassment is in the realm of disputed questions of fact and such questions of
Page No.# 5/9
fact had not been properly examined by the Tribunal though the Tribunal has
the power to examine these facts under 1sub-section 3 of Section 22 of the
Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985. Therefore, this Court remanded the matter
back to the Tribunal for further examination. The matter was heard once again
by the Tribunal. The respondent No.1 before this Court was examined and her
statement was recorded. As far as the allegation of sexual harassment made
against the Principal of the school is concerned, the Principal was not examined
and the case of the petitioner before this Court would be that by this time he
has been transferred to another school in southern part of India where notice
was not given to him and therefore, he could not present himself before the
Tribunal, etc.
7. Be that as it may, the fact remains that, in this case, where serious
allegations of sexual harassment were made against the Principal of the school,
he was never examined by the Tribunal. Nevertheless, having noted the
statement of the respondent No.1, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
real reason behind the termination of services of the respondent No.1 is not her
unsatisfactory performance but malafide on the part of the Principal and,
"(3) A tribunal shall have, for the purposes of [discharging its functions under this Act], the
same powers as are vested in a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) while
trying a suit, in respect of the following matters, namely:-
(a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on
oath;
(b) requiring the discovery and production of documents;
(c) receiving evidence of affidavit;
(d) subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872
(1 of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or
document from any office;
(e) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents;
(f) reviewing its decisions;
(g) dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte;
(h) setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order
passed by it ex parte; and
(i) any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government."
Page No.# 6/9
consequently, the Tribunal once again set aside the order of termination, vide its
order dated 17.12.2015. The petitioner has again challenged the order of the
Tribunal before this Court in the present writ petition.
8. In the present case, though notice was served on the respondent No.1,
she did not enter her appearance. Therefore, this Court appointed a practising
lawyer of this Court, Mr. Preetam Mahanta, as amicus curiae. Mr. Mahanta has
seen the record of the case and has argued the case at length before this Court.
9. We have heard the counsel appearing for both the parties.
10. Mrs. RS Choudhury, learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that
the admitted case is that the services of the respondent No.1 were terminated
during the period of her probation. It is again true that though the period of
probation was for two years which would have come to an end in June, 2008,
the services were terminated by the authority before the period of probation
could come to an end in exercise of the powers given to the authority under the
terms of the appointment order dated 07.06.2006 which we already referred to
above. The terms of the appointment order clearly stipulate that the services of
a teacher on probation can be terminated at any point of time during the period
of probation without assigning any reasons.
11. What is important for this Court to examine is that though the rights of
a government servant during the period of probation are limited, yet such an
employee is given protection under the law. The very purpose of placing an
employee initially on probation is to examine his/her work and conduct by the
employer. It is true that while an employee is on probation, his/her performance
is actually under scrutiny and unsatisfactory performance will not confirm
him/her in service. He is only liable to be confined on completing satisfactory
Page No.# 7/9
service during probation.
12. In the present case, services of the respondent No.1 had been
terminated even before the period of probation had come to an end, as we have
already referred above. But then such are the powers given to the authority. So,
it is not something which is in violation of law. Moreover, it is not a case of
malafide inasmuch as there was no allegation of misconduct against the
respondent No.1. She was only being judged for her performance as a teacher
which was not satisfactory and therefore, her services were terminated. The
allegation of sexual harassment is clearly an afterthought as this allegation has
come for the first time when the respondent No.1 had moved an original
application before the Tribunal subsequent to her termination from service. It is
an admitted fact that there was no such complaint earlier, not even in her reply
to the authorities where she was asked to improve her performance from time
to time.
13. All this Court has to examine in the present case is whether the
reports, including the report of the Principal, on the basis of which services
of the respondent No.1 came to an end was merely motive or was it the
foundation for the termination of services of the respondent No.1. The
difference between these two concepts i.e. motive and foundation, in
service law is now well settled. In Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State
Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. and Another, reported in (1999) 2 SCC
21, explaining the two concepts in paragraphs 11 and 27, the Hon'ble Apex
Court stated as under:
"11. Now, there are two lines of cases decided by this Court which deal with
the question in issue. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers,
this Court has taken the view that if the ex parte enquiry or report is
Page No.# 8/9
the motive for the termination order, then the termination is not to be called
punitive merely because the principles of natural justice have not been followed.
On the other hand, there is another line of cases, where this Court has held that
the facts revealed in the enquiry are not the motive but the foundation for the
termination of the services of the temporary servant or probationer, and hence
punitive as the principles of natural justice have not been followed, and such
orders are to be declared void. This Court has held that for finding out whether
a given case falls within either of these two categories, it is permissible for the
High Court or the Administrative Tribunal to go behind the order and look into
the record of the proceedings, the antecedent and attendant circumstances
culminating in the order of termination.
It was then stated in paragraph 27 as under:
27. In other words, it will be a case of motive if the master, after gathering
some prima facie facts, does not really wish to go into their truth but decides
merely not to continue a dubious employee. The master does not want to
decide or direct a decision about the truth of the allegations. But if he conducts
an enquiry only for the purpose of proving the misconduct and the employee is
not heard, it is a case where the enquiry is the foundation and the termination
will be bad."
The facts of the present case clearly reveal that the respondent No.1
who was on probation was being asked from time to time to explain her conduct
in various matters relating to her teaching and other school activities. Her
performance was judged by an independent authority i.e. the Inspector of Class
Room Teaching and Learning. This report was then examined by DPC in Delhi
which came to the conclusion that the performance of respondent No.1 being
unsatisfactory should not continue as teacher and on the basis of all these, her
services were terminated. Therefore, there is no fact on record which can reveal
that there was any enquiry against the respondent No.1 regarding her
misconduct and enquiry which was done behind her back which became the
foundation of termination of service. The only enquiry and the reports which are
on record relate to the performance of the respondent No.1 as a teacher which
was below satisfaction. The same position has been reiterated by the Hon'ble
Page No.# 9/9
Apex Court in the case of Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of
Observational Sciences (ARIES) vs. Devendra Joshi and others,
reported in (2018) 15 SCC 73.
14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and the judgments of the Hon'ble
Apex Court referred to above, we are of the opinion that no interference is
called for with the termination of respondent No.1. Accordingly, the impugned
order dated 17.12.2015, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Guwahati in Original Application No.97/2008 is hereby set aside. We affirm the
termination order against the respondent No.1.
15. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly.
16. The Gauhati High Court Legal Services Authority will pay Mr. Preetam
Mahanta, learned Advocate, the remuneration, as admissible, for the assistance
rendered by him as Amicus Curiae in this case.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Comparing Assistant
