SURESH SADASHIV MORE Vs. SIDDHA SARANA SANGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 227 of the constitution of India, takes exception to the order passed by the School Tribunal, Pune Region, Pune dated 16th September, 1988 in appeal No. 52 of 1988.

(2.) THE Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Respondent school. It is not in dispute that before the completion of one year, his services came to be terminated by order dated 26th March, 1987 on the premises that he was appointed against a temporary post only for one academic year. That order was challenged by the Petitioner before the School Tribunal by way of Appeal no. 36 of 1987. The School Tribunal allowed the said appeal by order dated 30th june, 1987. The School Tribunal held that the appointment of the petitioner was against the permanent vacancy and therefore, on probation. In the circumstances, the Tribunal held that the termination order was illegal as it was founded on wrong assumption. The petitioner was accordingly continued in service. It is however, before the expiry of the two years, the Management once again terminated the service of the petitioner on 29th April, 1988. The reason indicated in the order is that probation period was to expire and therefore, you are removed from the service with effect from 30th April, 1988. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the School Tribunal by way of Appeal No. 52 of 1988. Before the Tribunal Management adduced several materials to justify its order while contending that the petitioner was on probation and that his termination was simple termination. Nevertheless, the materials were relied by the Management only to justify its order to contend that the Management was of the view that the work performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory. Besides, there was material to suggest that even the conduct of the petitioner was not proper. The Tribunal has analyzed the entire materials and found that the subject termination was simple termination and there was material to justify the view formed by the Management and there was no warrant to interfere with the order passed by the Management. Accordingly, appeal came to be dismissed by order dated 16th June, 1988. This order is challenged in the present writ petition.

(3.) ACCORDING to Mr. Sakhare the petitioner was appointed initially on 11th july, 1986 and he continued for one academic term but his services were terminated by order dated 26th March, 1987, which order has been set aside and his services were reinstated. He contends that the Petitioner continued for the second academic year and has successfully completed the second academic year. In this view of the matter, according to him, the Management could not have terminated the services of the petitioner, but by taking recourse to the enquiry contemplated under Rule 36 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private School (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981. It is next contended that in any case the only reason stated in the impugned order is that the Petitioner's services were terminated as the probation period was to expire and not because of his work performance or otherwise. Moreover, the said order is punitive one because the materials referred by the Management to justify the order are nothing but stigmatic. He further contends that in any case the Management cannot be allowed to rely on those materials as that is not the basis specified in the order. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents has supported the order passed by the Tribunal. The Respondents have seriously disputed that the petitioner had already completed two years service before the impugned order was passed, as contended by the petitioner. Further, according to the respondents, the order is simple termination and therefore, is not punitive in nature. If this be so, no other enquiry was necessary. Moreover, the Management has justified the order also by pointing out materials and those materials cannot be used against the Management to hold that the subject order was punitive in nature or to hold that in absence of enquiry conducted under Rule 36 the same would be invalid. Reliance has been placed on the ruling in (59) F. L. R. Page 95 (Bombay High Court Division Bench) Abdul Menon Azmi, Shri Gor Tushar jayantilal v. The Secretary, Seth P. T. and Seth T. G. Nanavati Charity Trust and Ors. ; 2002 1 ALLMR 104 (Bombay D. B.); krishnadevaraya Education Trust and another v. L. A. Balakrishana and, 2002 1 ALLMR 302 Pavenendra Narayar Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi P. G. I. of Medical Sciences and Anr. , 2001 9 SCC 319