O.P. Garg, J. (Vice-Chairman) - (1.) IN this second round of litigation, the applicant Shri P. Kesava Mandadi belonging to Backward Glass has come to challenge the termination order dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure A-1) which has been passed after taking into consideration the observations and directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court in Civil Writ Petition No, 16826/CAT/1999 decided on 6.2.2001 (Annexure A-23). The profile of the precise facts leading to the present O.A. is as follows:
(2.) As a result of All India Written Examination, the applicant was selected and appointed as Education Officer on 3.11.1995 in the pay scale of Rs. 3000-5000. He joined the service on 22.11.1995 at Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office, Silchar (Assam). The appointment of the applicant was, inter alia, subject to the following two conditions:-- "4. He will be on probation for a period of 2 years which may be extended. Upon successful completion of probation he will be confirmed in his turn as per Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan Rules on the availability of permanent vacancies; 5. During the probation and thereafter, until he is confirmed, the services of the appointee are terminable by one month's notice on either side without any reason being assigned therefore. The appointing authority, however, reserves the right to terminate the services of the appointee before expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof." The applicant had some problems and tough time at Silchar, and on his request, he was transferred to Chandigarh Regional Office in the month of May, 1997. He joined at Chandigarh on 10.7.1997. The period of probation of the applicant was extended by order dated 20.11.1997 (Annexure A-15) for six months i.e., upto 31.5.1998. By another order dated 15.9.1998 (Annexure A-17), the period of probation was further extended upto 31.12.1998 with retrospective effect. Ultimately, by order dated 15.4.1999 (Annexure A-21), the services of the applicant were terminated. The order of termination was made the subject matter of challenge by the applicant in O.A. No. 389-CH of 1999. After due contest, the said O.A. was dismissed on 2.9.1999 (Annexure A-22). Aggrieved, the applicant filed a Civil Writ Petition No. 16826/CAT/1999 before the Hon'ble High Court. The said Writ Petition was allowed by order dated 6.2.2001 (Annexure A-23) and the orders of termination dated 15.4.1999 and the order of the Tribunal were quashed with certain directions, the relevant portion of which is extracted as follows :-- "However, without analysing the impact of the aforesaid remarks of the counter-signed authority, the Commissioner, KVS could not have terminated the petitioner's service by treating his performance to be unsatisfactory during the extended period of probation. A reading of the order dated 15.4.1999 clearly shows that instead of analysing the probation reports of the petitioner in an objective manner, the Commissioner, KVS terminated the petitioner's service by generally describing his record to be unsatisfactory. In other words, the Commissioner KVS passed order dated 15.4.1999 without due application of mind". "We are further of the view that remarks recorded by the counter-signing authority in the last probation report of the petitioner had the effect of washing out the adverse remarks recorded by the reporting officer. Therefore, the order passed by the Commissioner, KVS in the purported exercise of his power under paragraphs 4 and 5 of the Memorandum dated 3.11.1995 without considering the remarks of the counter-signing authority will have to be treated as vitiated by arbitrariness and violation of the rule of fairness which forms an integral part of the concept of equality." JUDGEMENT_288_TLCA0_20030.htm "For the reasons mentioned above, the writ petition is allowed. Order dated 2.9.1999 passed by the Tribunal as well as the order dated 15.4.1999 passed by the Commissioner, KVS are declared illegal and quashed with a direction that the petitioner be reinstated in service with all consequential benefits. However, it is made clear that the appointing authority shall be free to pass final order in the matter of confirmation and/or termination of the petitioner's service after due consideration of the entire record and after giving opportunity to him to explain the adverse material, if any, available against him." The respondent-department took the mater before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) No. 12816 of 2001 which was dismissed as withdrawn on 13.8.2001 (Annexure A-24).
(3.) PURSUANT to the directions issued by the Hon'ble High Court, the applicant was reinstated in service by order dated 11.10.2001 (Annexure A-25) and he joined duty on 21.11.2001. A show cause notice as contemplated by the order of the Hon'ble High Court was served on the applicant on 22.11.2001 (Annexure A-26) to which a detailed reply was submitted by the applicant on 3.12.2001 (Annexure A-30). The applicant was also afforded opportunity of personal hearing which he availed on 4.2.2002. After taking into consideration the directions of the Hon'ble Court and the material on record, the Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangalhan, New Delhi--Respondent No. 1 again terminated the services of the applicant by passing the impugned order dated 5.2.2002 (Annexure A-1).;