Paramjit Singh Vs
Director, Public Instructions & Ors.
ANIL R. DAVE, J.
aggrieved by the Judgment and Order dated 7th February,2005 in CWP No.3267 of
2004 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, this appeal
has been filed by Khalsa High School, Mansa, District Mansa, Punjab, through
facts giving rise to the present litigation in a nutshell are asunder:
nos. 3 to 7 were appointed on probation as teachers by the management of the
appellant's school. They were appointed on probation with a clear understanding
that they were to remain on probation for a period of one year and if during
the said period of probation, their work was not found to be satisfactory,
their services would be terminated. The said fact had been incorporated in
their appointment orders and the said understanding was also in consonance with
the provisions of Rule 8 of the Punjab Privately-Managed Recognized Schools
Employees (Security of Services) Rules, 1981(hereinafter referred to as `the
Rules'). As work of the said teachers was not found to be satisfactory, the
period of probation was extended by a further period of six months, but even
during the extended period, their work was not found to be satisfactory and,
therefore, services of the said teachers had been terminated without
stigmatizing them in the orders, whereby their services were terminated.
aggrieved by the order of termination, the said respondents had approached the
Director Public Instructions (Schools) Punjab byway of a representation and
even before the representation could be decided, they approached the Punjab
State School Tribunal by filing an appeal against the orders of termination.
The Tribunal had passed an interim order dated 13th February, 2003 whereby the
appellant was restrained from terminating services of the respondent-teachers.
the Tribunal by an order dated 27th January, 2004 had allowed the appeal and
had directed the appellant-school to reinstate the teachers with back-wages.
The said order was challenged by the appellant by filing CWP No.3267 of 2004 in
the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the said petition was rejected by an
order dated February 7, 2005.
Tribunal had allowed the appeal by considering the termination as the penal. According
to the Tribunal, departmental inquiry ought to have been held before
termination of services of the teachers. Moreover, no approval of the Director
was obtained as required under the Provisions of Section 4 of the Punjab
Privately Managed Recognized Schools Employees (Security of Service) Act, 1979(hereinafter
referred to `the Act') and, therefore, also the orders of termination were bad
foretasted order passed by the Tribunal was confirmed by the High Court.
have heard the learned counsel and have also gone through the relevant rules
and the judgments referred to by the learned counsel.
is a settled legal position that termination of a probationer on account of his
non-satisfactory performance can never be treated as` penal'. In spite of the
said settled legal position, the Tribunal considered termination as `penal' and
the said view was confirmed by the High Court. In the circumstances, we do not
approve the reasoning of the Tribunal confirmed by the High Court that the termination
of the a fore stated teachers was penal in nature. As the termination was not
penal in nature, no departmental inquiry was required to be conducted before
we are of the view that prior approval under Section 4of the Act ought to have
been obtained from the Director as it is mandatory. Even in case of termination
of service of a probationer, prior approval is must.
therefore, hold that the termination was not in accordance with law because no
prior approval of the Director was obtained by the appellant-management before terminating
services of the respondent-teachers. We, however, quash the direction regarding
payment of arrears of salary to the teachers.
the circumstances, we confirm the order with regard to reinstatement of the
respondent-teachers. If the respondent-teachers have already been relieved,
they shall be reinstated but without arrears of salary in view of the fact that
they have not worked and, therefore, principle of "no work, no pay"
should be applied. However, so as to compensate them, if the said
respondent-teachers have already been relieved, they would be paid compensation
of Rs.25,000/- each because the order of termination was not just and legal. They
shall be reinstated immediately.
to say, that it would be open to the appellant-management to take approval of
the Director as required by law, if the management desires to terminate
services of the respondent-teachers for their non-satisfactory performance. We
also clarify that we have not gone into correctness of the decision of the
appellant-employer with regard to quality of performance of the teachers.
appeal is partly allowed and disposed of with the fore stated directions but
without any order as to costs.
(Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA)
(ANIL R. DAVE)