JAYASHRI JYOTIRAM PHALE Vs. PEOPLES EDUCATION SOCIETY KOLHAPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By filing this petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment and order dated 2nd December, 1998, passed by the School Tribunal, Kolhapur Region, Kolhapur in Appeal No. 38 of 1998, by which the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal on the present petitioner.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed by respondent No. 2 as a Peon vide order of appointment dated 2nd June, 1996. The appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years as specifically stated in the said order of appointment. On the basis of such appointment order, petitioner started discharging her duties. The services of the petitioner came to be terminated by respondent No. 1 on 25th March, 1998. It is stated in the said termination order that the services of the petitioner are not required. The petitioner challenged the said termination order before the Tribunal on the ground that her services have been arbitrarily terminated and as such the said order was passed by way of penalty. While she was in service, her explanation was taken regarding missing of files and it was alleged that the petitioner is instrumental in the said incident of missing files. The Tribunal, after hearing both sides and after going through the record came to the conclusion that since the work of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory, her services came to be terminated by giving one month's notice during the period of probation. It is the aforesaid order which is impugned at the instance of the petitioner in this petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Tribunal has committed an obvious error in coming to the conclusion that the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that her work was not satisfactory. It is submitted that looking to the reply of the management and the documents on record, it is clear that the order in question is stigmatic and has been passed in order to punish the petitioner in view of the incident of missing of some files for which the petitioner was not responsible. It is submitted that even the services of a probationer cannot be terminated by way of punishment without holding an enquiry and without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing. In order to substantiate her say, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the reply of the management filed before the Tribunal as well as the reasoning of the Tribunal in this behalf. In the circumstances it is submitted that the order of the Tribunal is required to be set aside by setting aside the order of termination.