LAWS(J&K)-2013-3-15

R. D. VISHWAKARMA Vs. U.O.I.

Decided On March 14, 2013
R. D. Vishwakarma Appellant
V/S
U.O.I. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THESE two writ petitions* filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir calls in question the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench in TA-54/JK of 2002 dated 20.05.2003 (for brevity the Tribunal). One of the petitions namely SWP no. 1008/2003 has been filed by the original applicant-writ petitioner and the other one has been preferred by the Union of India and its officers being SWP no. 2034/2003. The Tribunal in its impugned order has upheld the order dated 5th/6th April, 1999 discharging the original applicant-Dr. R. D. Vishwakarma from service on the ground that his work and conduct was not satisfactory and reverted him to his original post of Principal, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan. The pivotal question of law is whether the order of discharge is in fact an order of dismissal casting stigma and warranting an enquiry '. The Union of India has petitioned against the award of salary which relief necessarily emanates from the interim order of this High Court before transfer of the petition to the Tribunal.

(2.) IN order to put the controversy in its proper perspective few facts may first be noticed. On 10.11.1995, respondent no. 3-Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (KVS) issued an advertisement inviting application for filling up one post of Assistant Commissioner from the Scheduled Tribe quota. The original applicant-Dr. Vishvakarma was working on the post of Principal with respondent no. 3-KVS. He was eligible for the direct quota post of Assistant Commissioner and applied. He was selected and appointed vide appointment letter dated 20.03.1996 (Annexure-B). According to the terms and conditions of appointment, the original applicant-writ petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years which was extendable upto three years. He was to be confirmed upon successful completion of period on his own turn according to the availability of a permanent vacancy. The original applicant-writ petitioner joined on the post of Assistant Commissioner in KVS on 08.04.1996. As repeated reference has been made on behalf of the petitioner to documents extending the period of probation with advise, it would be apposite to make express reference to the letter dated 17.02.1998 (Annexure-F) which is set out below in extenso:-

(3.) ANOTHER letter was sent to the original applicantwrit petitioner bringing to his notice that his work and conduct was not satisfactory and he remained unable to show any marked improvement. He was advised to improve his performance. The aforesaid letter dated 06.10.1998 is also set out below in extenso:-