UNION TERRITORY OF CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Chandigarh Administration has approached this Court by challenging judgement dated 1.2.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity 'the Tribunal') holding that services of respondent No. 2 Shri Vinod Kumar, Physical Education Instructor, who was working on contract, were terminated illegally and the order of his termination dated 22.11.2006 (P.4) passed by the District Education Officer, Chandigarh was stigmatic. The Tribunal further held that respondent No. 2 be taken back in service without any salary for the interregnum period. However, the gap period is to be counted for all other service benefits.

(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. Shri Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 2 was appointed as Physical Training Instructor in the Government Senior Secondary School, Sector 16, Chandigarh on contract basis for a fixed salary of Rs. 2000/- per month vide appointment order dated 8.7.2002 (P.1). The appointment was made in pursuance of circular dated 28.11.1997 issued by the Education Department to cope with shortage of teachers/ masters and thereby the heads of the institutions were authorised to appoint the teachers on contract basis. His salary was eventually increased to Rs. 7450/- per month till the date of his termination on 22.11.2006 vide order of even date issued by the District Education Officer (P.4).

(3.) In the year 2003 a girl with the name of Ms. Anupika levelled serious allegations of sexual harassment by Shri Vinod Kumar and as a consequence he was transferred to junior wing of the school. After some times he was shifted again and in September, 2006 the same girl complained of similar harassment by Shri Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 2. A preliminary enquiry was conducted to verify the allegations levelled in the complaint (P.1A). On the basis of the preliminary enquiry a show cause notice was issued to Shri Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 2 on 20.11.2006 (P.2). He was afforded opportunity to submit his defence in writing within two days and was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing. He did not file any reply to the show cause notice nor he appeared before the District Education Officer. He infact proceeded on casual leave without getting it sanctioned as per the requirement of rules. Keeping in view the serious lapse on the part of Vinod Kumar, respondent No. 2 and the fact that on an earlier occasion complaint of similar nature had been received against him, his contract of the service was terminated. It was also found that his continuation in service would have been against the interest of the students. Respondent No.2 alleges that he sent a representation. The receipt of the so called representation claimed to have been submitted by Shri Vinod Kumar for the supply of documents has been denied by respondent No.2. As a result his services were terminated vide order dated 22.11.2006 (P.4).