Sabina, J. - (1.) THIS petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging order dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure P -15) passed by the Educational Tribunal, Punjab.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that services of the petitioner have been dispensed with without holding any proper enquiry. False allegations had been levelled against the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned order was liable to be set aside and petitioner be re -instated in service. Case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he joined the services of the school on 11.7.1988 as Music teacher. Petitioner had earned various commendation certificates. Principal of the school at the relevant time became inimical towards the petitioner and due to this reason, false allegations were levelled against the petitioner that on 17.11.2010, petitioner had attended his duty under the influence of liquor. The medical report also showed that merely on the basis of smell, the doctor had reached the conclusion that the petitioner was under the influence of liquor. No tests were conducted in this regard. Petitioner was placed under suspension vide order dated 22.11.2010 (Annexure P -5). Petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P -6 to the suspension order denying the allegations levelled thereunder. However, without considering the reply, services of the petitioner were terminated vide order dated 15.12.2010 (Annexure P -7). Tribunal had erred in upholding the said order. Hence, the present petition.
(3.) THE tribunal, while rejecting the case of the petitioner Vide order dated 28.10.2013 (Annexure P -15), has observed as under: - 10. We have considered the rival contentions of the parties and are of the view that in this case a fair domestic enquiry was conducted by the management before passing the impugned order. This is proved on record that petitioner was found under the influence of liquor. The principal in his wisdom constituted four members committee which went to the room of the petitioner and found him under the influence of liquor. In order to get corroborative evidence of the expert, he was sent to the office of S.M.O. whose findings we have already recorded above. Still further a show cause notice was given to the petitioner. His reply was considered. It was found unsatisfactory and thereafter the impugned order was passed. No regular domestic inquiry was required in this case nor the prior approval of DPI(S) was required as the petitioner was not working against aided post. Still to satisfy the conscience of the Tribunal and the authority a fair and legal procedure was adopted by the management when four members namely Sh. Ashok Sharma, D.P.E., Mr. Vineet Verma, PGT, Mr. Kamaljit Singh, TGD -and Mr. Balbir Singh Junior Assistant were asked to get the medical examination of the petitioner. The petitioner has not levelled any allegation against these persons. Moreover ultimate finding was supposed to be given by an expert witness. S.M.O. of the District gave the report and he came to the positive findings that the petitioner was stammering and he was under the influence of liquor. The defence of the petitioner was duly considered and found to be false. It was lacking evidence. 11. Strict discipline is the requirement of the day in an educational institute. If a teacher comes to the school under the influence of liquor, what impression the small children would get. The reputation of the institute is tarnished. Parents would be scared and reluctant to send their children to this institute where the teacher commit indiscipline and misconduct. Coming to the school under the influence of liquor and to this extent that the petitioner was found stammering is serious matter. His gait was not normal as found by the doctor suggesting that he was heavily under the influence of liquor on appearance. For such an teacher there should be no room in an educational institute and, therefore, we cannot say that the impugned order was vindictive in nature. Therefore, the same is upheld.;