- (1.) The sole issue for consideration is whether the termination of the service of the petitioner, a probationer, by giving one month's salary in lieu of notice was a termination simplicitor and thus valid, or is stigmatic in nature and consequently, could not have been made without holding a regular disciplinary enquiry envisaged under the Service Rules.
(2.) Before embarking upon the legal position, the facts in brief necessary for adjudication may be noted. The petitioner applied for appointment as Assistant Professor in Civil Engineering at Madan Mohan Malviya Engineering College, Gorakhpur pursuant to an advertisement. The Selection Committee found the petitioner suitable for appointment. The recommendation of the Selection Committee was accepted by the Board of Management of the University and in pursuance thereof an appointment letter dated 26 August 2016 was issued under signature of the Registrar. In terms of the appointment letter, the petitioner was placed on probation for two years, extendable by such periods as the Vice Chancellor may deem fit. Clause 3 (b) of the appointment letter, which is of relevance, envisages termination of service of the petitioner by giving one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof during the initial or the extended period of probation. It reads thus:- "(b). During the initial or extended period of probation her services may be terminated by the competent authority without assigning any reasons by giving him/her one month's notice or pay in lieu thereof."
(3.) The petitioner started working as Assistant Professor in the Department of Civil Engineering since 1 September 2015. According to the petitioner, on her request, a type IV quarter in the University Campus was allotted to her and she started residing therein alongwith her family. In due course, she was given additional responsibility of Hostel Superintendent of the girls hostel and was allotted two rooms in the hostel premises by an order dated 3 November 2015. She was required to take possession thereof immediately, failing which the allotment would stand automatically cancelled and the petitioner would be debarred from any further allotment. The petitioner being a married woman found it difficult to occupy the said accommodation inside the girls hostel where entry of male members was not permitted. The petitioner claims to have made a representation on 5 November 2015 to the Registrar to permit her to continue in possession of the accommodation allotted to her earlier, as in case she occupies the accommodation inside the girls hostel, her husband would face difficulty in accessing it.;