SAINIK SCHOOL REWA Vs. RAJESH VISHWAKARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO letters patent appeals are preferred against the order passed by the Single Judge on 30th October, 2000. The petitioner Rajesh Vishwakarma was directed to be reinstated with 50% back wages. His termination during the period of probation was adjudged to be punitive. The petitioner claims in L. P. A. 379/2000 for back wages. The rcspondent-Sainik School Society has filed L. P. A. No. 320/2000 claiming that service of the petitioner was terminated in accordance with law.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as Carpentry Instructor on 9-5-95. He joined on 16-5-95. He was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year. Period of probation was extended on 10th June, 1996 for another year. On 12th April, 1997 (Annexure P-19) before completion of the extended period of probation, the service of the petitioner was dispensed with. He was offered one month salary in lieu of the notice period of one month. During the period of probation, several memos were issued to the petitioner for improvement in his work. These memos were issued on 7-3-96 (Annexure P-4), 25-4-96 (Annexure P-5), 9-5-96 (Annexure P-6) and 30-7-96 (Annexure P-7 ). The deceased-father of the petitioner was also in the service of Sainik School was Carpentry Instructor and was allotted a house owned by Public Works Department which was in the pool of Sainik School, Rewa. The father of the petitioner died in the year 1993. After his death, the house was not vacated. The petitioner submits that the house was owned by his father and it did not belong to the school. It also transpires that the petitioner was allotted another House No. RB-3 situated in the school campus. This house was allotted to the petitioner on 30th December, 1995 (Annexure P-2 ). The petitioner was asked to occupy the same by 7th January, 1996. This house was not occupied by the petitioner for about five months; ultimately school allotted to it one Mr. G. R. Moorthy on compassionate grounds. After its allotment, the petitioner wrote the letter Annexure P-9 on 29th July, 1996 to the Principal, Sainik School, Rewa to the effect that owning to the domestic problem, he could not ask for the allotment of residential accommodation. The petitioner further mentioned that it was not his attitude not to leave the parent's home. In case the allotment letter of the house which was allotted to his deceased father was available with the Principal, then it would be more comfortable for him if the same house could be allotted in his name. He also asked for allotment of any other accommodation, if available. In reply (Annexure P-13) to his letter dated 29-7-96, the Sainik School informed him that the house which was allotted to the petitioner was not occupied by him for five months, hence it was allotted to Mr. G. R. Moorthy. At present the school did not have a suitable accommodation which could be allotted to the petitioner to reside alongwith his mother. The petitioner was advised to vacate the house which he was occupying unauthorisedly which was allotted to his father and to claim the house rent as per his entitlement. The petitioner in his reply Annexure P-12 dated 10th August, 96 informed that he had taken a house on rent at the rate of Rs. 500/- per month in Nehru Nagar and he was not occupying the school accommodation any more and prayed for settling of house rent allowance as per his designation. The school insisted that the house was still occupied by the petitioner and he was required to vacate it. The process under the Public Premises Eviction Act were initiated by the prescribed authority which was subjected to challenge in a Writ Petition No. 5243/1996 filed by the mother and brother of the petitioner. In the said writ petition it was contended that the land belonged to the Government. Later on it was transferred to the Sainik School Society; hence the prescribed authority had no jurisdiction to initiate the process under the Public Premises Eviction Act, 1981. This Court directed the prescribed authority to decide the objection which was decided in favour of the school. Thereafter a civil suit was filed for declaration of title and permanent injunction setting up the ownership of the house in the name of petitioner's father. It appears that the possession was taken by the school in proceedings under Public Premises Eviction Act. Even though memos Annexures P-4 to P-7 were issued for self-improvement to the petitioner, he submits that his service was not terminated due to unsatisfactory completion of probation period, but owing to the evil and malice generated owing to failure to vacate the house by his family members for which he was not responsible.

(3.) THE respondent-school in the return contended that performance of the petitioner was not found satisfactory during the period of probation. In spite of issuance of several memos, he did not show any improvement and indulged himself in illegally usurping the house belonging to the Sainik School Society alleging the ownership of his deceased father. The overall conduct of the petitioner was such that his retention in service was not justifiable. In addition, it was contended that the post of Carpentry Instructor has been abolished subsequently and the post has been diverted to that of Computer Teacher due to introduction of computer course. The order of termination is not stigmatic and no short-comings were reflected in the order. It was in accordance with the terms of appointment and prevailing rules and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. No enquiry was required to be conducted. The learned Single Judge opined that since the dispute arose as to the vacation of the house on 1 -3-96 just before completion of the period of probation, the said dispute was the foundation of the order and was not merely a motive. In case the performance of the petitioner was not satisfactory during the period of probation of one year, the period of probation should not have been extended by another year. The termination has been held to be revengeful and vindictive and tantamounts to inflicting punishment under the garb of the order of termination simpliciter.