Jain High School Panipat Vs Atma Ram

Th e present appeal is preferred ag a inst the judgment and decree d a ted 01.05.1997 pas s ed by the learned Civil Judge ( S r. Division), Panipat and judg m ent and decree dat e d 28.02.2001 passed by the l earned Additional District Ju d ge, Panipat.

¶15

BRIEF FACTS

¶16

Th e brief facts of the present c ase are that the respondent w as appointed as S c ience Teacher in the appellant School on 20.04.1987 (Ex.P/1) on one year probat i on, which was to come to end o n 19.04.1988. Prior to the expir y of probation peri o d the respondent made a req u est for confirmation and fur t her requested that i f confirmation is not possible th e n his probation period be extended (Ex.D/1) and t h e appellant extended his proba t ion for another one year i.e. f r om

¶17

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.12 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

RSA-1474-2001 (O&M) - 2-

¶19

20.04.1988 to 1 9.04.1989 (Ex.P/2). The resp o ndent again prior to the extended probation period, requested for confirmation and further if confirmation is not possible then r equested for extension of p e riod of probation (Ex.D/2). T he probation perio d of the respondent was again e x tended for one year i.e. 20.04.1 9 89 to 19.04.1990 ( E x.P/3).

¶20

O n 27.07.1989, the respondent wa s issued a notice (Ex.P/4) asking for explanation on t he basis of poor result of the B o ard Classes 1989 as to why an n ual increment may not be stopped. The reply was filed by the respondent wherei n he admitted his m istake and stated that in futu r e he would try to improve. On 30.11.1989, th e services of respondent were t erminated by giving one mon t h’s notice as per th e agreement w.e.f 30.11.1989. H e filed a civil suit in the year 1 9 90 for declaration t o the effect that the order of te r mination is bad in the eyes of law since no show c ause notice and charge-sheet w as ever issued and further tha t no enquiry was co n ducted and his services were t erminated by one letter. The c ivil suit filed by the respondent was allowed by the Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Pan i pat vide judgment a nd decree dated 01.05.1997, o n the ground that no enquiry w as conducted and n o opportunity of being heard w a s afforded to the respondent be f ore passing of orde r dated 30.11.1989.

¶21

Th e appellant filed the appeal aga i nst the judgment and decree d a ted 01.05.1997, w h ich was dismissed by the l e arned Additional District Ju d ge, Panipat, vide i t s judgment and decree dated 2 8.02.2001 on the ground that the impugned orde r was passed to penalise the res p ondent for poor result of the B o ard Classes 1989. F urther, since no opportunity o f being heard was granted to the respondent, the r efore, the impugned order was b ad in the eyes of law.

¶22

He n ce the present appeal.

¶23

TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.12 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

RSA-1474-2001 (O&M) - 3-

¶25

SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES

¶26

Le a rned counsel for the appella n t contends that the learned F irst Appellate Cour t totally ignored the fact that the respondent was employed with the appellant on y ear to year basis and was n ot regularized, so there was no requirement to c onduct any enquiry.

¶27

Pe r contra, learned counsel for th e respondent argues on the line s of the judgment a nd decree dated 28.02.2001 p assed by the learned Additi o nal District Judge, P anipat. 7. I h ave heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the w h ole record of this c a se.

¶28

UNDISPUTED FACTS

¶29

A p erusal of the record shows th a t undisputedly the respondent w as appointed as S c ience Teacher in the appellant-School on 20.04.1987 for one y ear on probation, w hich was extended every year o n the request of the respondent till 19.04.1990.

¶30

Be c ause of the poor result of the s t udents, letter dated 27.07.1989 w as issued to the re s pondent to file a response/expla n ation to the same. 10. A reply was filed by the respo n dent on 02.08.1989, wherein he admitted his m i stake and stated that he woul d try to improve. Vide impug n ed order dated 30. 1 1.1989, his services were termi n ated. 11. A d mitted fact of both the appella n t as well as the respondent is t hat the services of t h e respondent were never regul a rized. Further the probation pe r iod was extended f r om year to year on his request.

¶31

In v iew of the above, the present a p peal is allowed with no order as to costs. The ju d gment and decree dated 01.05.1997 passed by the learned C ivil TRIPTI SAINI 2025.03.12 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶32

RSA-1474-2001 (O&M) - 4-

¶33

Judge (Sr. Di v ision), Panipat and the judg m ent and decree dated 28.02.2 0 01 passed by the l e arned Additional District Judg e , are set aside and the suit file d by the respondent i s dismissed.

¶34

Th e appeal filed by the appellant h erein was dismissed vide judg m ent and decree dat e d 28.02.2001 whereby the lea r ned First Appellate Court dire c ted the appellant to re-instate the respondent along w ith consequential benefits. Fur t her liberty was gra n ted to the appellant to initiate disciplinary action and proceed a fter providing an op p ortunity of being heard to the r e spondent.

¶35

Th e present Regular Second App e al was filed in the year 2001 a nd vide order date d 04.05.2001 of this Court, th e judgments and decrees passe d by both the Courts below were stayed.

¶36