SABIR HUSSAIN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL HIGHER EDUCATION, PANCHKULA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Professor in Chemistry vide appointment order dated 14.12.2017 in respondent No.2. According to the terms of his appointment, he was to remain on probation for a period of three years. However, the second respondent discovered that certain documents pertaining to sports activities and NCC activities were bogus and therefore, show-cause-notices dated 31.8.2019 and 6.9.2019 were issued. The said notices were replied vide replies dated 6.9.2019 and 9.9.2019, respectively. Thereafter, the matter was referred to a Committee of Enquiry in accordance with Rule 8 (2) of the Haryana Affiliated College (Security of Service) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the '2006 Rules') which submitted its report dated 18.11.2019, finding the petitioner guilty of the aforementioned act. Based thereon, the Governing Body adopted Resolution dated 4.12.2019 to terminate the services of the petitioner and accordingly, termination order of even date i.e. 4.12.2019 (Annexure P-10) was issued. Appeal filed by the petitioner in accordance with 2006 Rules has also been dismissed vide order dated 12.10.2020 (Annexure P-18).

(2.) The sole argument of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the termination of the services of the petitioner was stigmatic in nature and thus, his services could not have been terminated except after conducting a regular enquiry. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Ashok Kumar Chopra Vs. Union of India and others,2019 2 SCT 262, as well as judgments passed in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences , 1999 1 SCT 861 and Union of India and others Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi , 2010 3 SCT 578.

(3.) In response, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that the petitioner had secured the appointment on the basis of mis-representation and thus, the show-cause-notices were issued to him. The matter was also enquired into by Committee of Enquiry constituted in accordance with Rule 8(2)(b) of 2006 Rules, even though, the said Rule was not strictly applicable. The Enquiry Committee found the petitioner guilty of submitting bogus certificates and thus, recommended termination of his services. Accordingly, the services of the petitioner have been terminated. Further, the services of a probationer can be terminated at any time during the period of probation, even without giving any reason. He relies upon Amarjeet Singh Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Patiala and others,2012 2 RSJ 545.