- (1.) The writ petition challenges the order of termination of service passed by the National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra on 11.02.2011 (Annexure P-33) purporting to terminate the services of the petitioner after paying a month's salary in lieu of notice. The order of termination was issued to take effect immediately on the ground that a notice to show cause against termination calling upon to petitioner to explain certain financial irregularities elicited a reply and since the reply was not satisfactory, the petitioner's services was being terminated without any further enquiry since he was in a period of probation. The issue that arises for consideration is whether the order of termination of the so-called probationer is a termination simpliciter or it is stigmatic which could have been passed without involving the petitioner in a detailed enquiry. It is an admitted case that the petitioner had been appointed as a Lecturer on 09.07.2007 and the order of appointment provided for 2 years period of probation. The petitioner would contend that the statute governing the National Institute of Technology provided only for a period of one year of probation and since he had completed one year period on 09.07.2008, he could not be treated as a person on probation. In any event, even as per the terms of the initial appointment, the probation period extended on 09.07.2009 and the continuation of a job beyond that period ought not to have been taken as still in a status as a probationer.
(2.) To a contention raised by the petitioner that he could not be treated as a probationer and still further that the order passed was in any event stigmatic and, therefore, it could not have been passed without involving the petitioner in an enquiry, it is contended in reply that National Institute of Technology had its own bye-laws and there was no fixed period of probation prescribed. On the completion of two years' period, the matter was placed for confirmation of the services of the petitioner in the post as Lecturer before the Board of Governors, but at that time, it was informed by the Chairman that an enquiry regarding overstaying of Winter School RTCS-09 and WSCNT-08 was being conducted and it was believed that the petitioner, who had been entrusted with the expenditure in organizing and conducting winter school, had indulged in certain improprieties. It was also observed by the Committee that he had been discourteous, impolite and had used derogatory language against the officers of the Institute and so a disciplinary action should be taken against him. It was also brought out through the minutes of the meeting of the Board of Governors that his ACR for the year 2007-08 and 2008-09 "were OK". It is stated by the respondents that the Board of Governors had initially decided to extend the period of probation but since the enquiry had not been completed and when he had still not been confirmed and when the matter was brought up after a fact finding by the Committee indicting him, the Board decided to issue a notice to show cause why disciplinary action should not be taken against him on the charges as per the report. It is contended by the respondents that the Board had also decided to lodge FIR with the local police against the petitioner for some acts of criminal forgery and financial irregularities which the report had brought about. Accordingly, the petitioner had been served with a notice on 03.01.2011 and the reply had been given by the petitioner on 23.01.2011. The Board Civil Writ Petition No. 5616 of 2011 (O&M) -4 -proceeded to immediately pass the impugned order making reference to the fact finding report, the alleged acts of the petitioner's improprieties and financial irregularities including criminal forgery. The order of termination also sets out the fact that the reply given by the respondents was not acceptable and that in the reply, the petitioner had misrepresented the facts which were not accepted by the Board. The Board had observed in the impugned order that serious financial irregularities including financial forgery had been committed by the Board in conducting RTCS-09.
(3.) It requires no forensic exercise to discern that the order is stigmatic in character. The order that rejects an explanation and reaffirms its own assessment that the petitioner had been guilty of "financial forgery" (sic) is not a complimentary expression, in the least. On the other hand, it makes a very serious imputation on the financial integrity of an employee.;