ANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY Vs. BHARTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Respondent No. 1 was first appointed as Assistant Teacher on temporary basis for the period from 1.7.1996 to 30.4.1997 by Order dated 1.7.1996. After that academic session, by Order dated 1.5.1997 she was appointed on probation of two years with effect from 2.5.1997. The appointment of respondent No. 1 on probation was also approved by the Education Officer. However, even before one year's service was completed, during the probation period on 29.4.1998 the petitioner issued an order terminating services of respondent No. 1 on the ground that her work was found to be unsatisfactory. She was given one month's salary in lieu of this notice along with that termination order and thus her services came to be terminated with effect from 30.4.1998. That order was challenged by respondent in Appeal No. STC/50/ 1998 before the School Tribunal. According to her, the termination order was contrary to law, arbitrary and out of vindication and violating the principles of natural justice. She contended that her entire service record was satisfactory and unblemished and no adverse remarks were communicated to her. However, at the fag end of the academic session 1997-1998, the Head Mistress of the School had issued a letter to respondent No. 1 calling explanation about a letter received about her character. However, copy of that letter was not supplied. It is contended that letter dated 30.4.1998 was issued to her for improving her behaviour and that letter was received along with the order terminating her services. It was contended that the management had tried to create adverse record against her in respect of termination order. It is contended that termination order amounts to termination on the basis of misconduct, misbehaviour and is thus stigmatic. It is contended that without holding Departmental Enquiry under Rules 36 and 37 under the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981, (For Short the "Rules") such termination order could not have been issued.

(2.) The petitioner contested the said appeal denying all the adverse allegations. It is contended that teaching performance of the respondent was poor and her overall performance as Assistant Teacher was unsatisfactory. She was warned and notices were issued to her in that respect. It is contended that because she was probationer it was not necessary to hold enquiry under the relevant rules. Services of the probationer could be terminated under section 5(3) of the MEPS Act, if the work and behaviour of the probationer was not satisfactory. It is contended that several complaints were received about character and behaviour of respondent No. 1. Taking into consideration overall performance, the Management decided to terminate her services and her services were rightly terminated.

(3.) After hearing the parties, the School Tribunal held that the termination order is not just, proper and illegal because the termination is based on certain allegations about her character and misconduct amounting to moral turpitude and this could not be done without holding departmental enquiry. In the result, termination order was quashed and set aside and the Management was directed to reinstate her on her original post with continuity of service within a period of 30 days with arrears of emoluments. That order is challenged in the present case.