NITESH SINGH PAWAR Vs. SAINIK SCHOOL SOCIETY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the order of termination dated 1-8-2011 by which his services, as a Librarian, under the establishment of the respondent-school have been dispensed with. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present petition are that the respondent-Sainik School is managed by a Society registered under the provisions of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as a Librarian at Sainik School, Rewa in accordance with the Sainik Schools Society Rules & Regulations 1997 (hereinafter referred to as the "Rules") by order dated 12-6-2010. The petitioner accepted the terms of appointment and submitted his written acceptance to the terms thereof vide his letter dated 1-7-2010. The appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of one year extendable by two years in accordance with the Rules. The respondents issued a letter of performance counselling to the petitioner on 17-3-2010 informing him that his work during the period of probation was not found satisfactory and that he should show substantial improvement in his performance. The petitioner filed a reply to the letter of performance counselling on 28-3-2011 giving explanations for the shortcomings found by the authority in his performance. On 15-4-2011 the respondents again called for an explanation of the petitioner regarding delay in preparation of the result sheet of one of the students to which the petitioner submitted his reply on 25-4-2011.

(2.) Thereafter, the respondents served the petitioner with a charge sheet on 3-6-2011 alleging that the petitioner had been negligent in the performance of the duties as a result of which certain important parts of the computer were stolen from the library resulting in the loss of property worth Rs. 11,900/-and, therefore, his conduct was in violations of Rules 9.01 (e) and 9.01 (o) of the Rules. Immediately on receipt of the charge sheet the petitioner submitted a detailed reply on 26-6-2011 wherein the petitioner while giving his explanation also brought on record the fact that the loss of computer parts was on account of theft by one of the students, namely Abhishek Kumar Mishra, who had confessed his guilt and had also informed as to how the ram/ hard disc of the computer was sold in the market.

(3.) On 29-7-2011 the probation period of the petitioner was extended by two months up to 31-8-2011. On 1-8-2011 the respondents issued the impugned order of termination of the petitioner in view of paragraph 3(a) of the terms of appointment enshrined in the letter of appointment dated 12-6-2010 informing the petitioner that his services would stand terminated with effect from 31-8-2011, being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition.