Nirmaljit Kaur, J.@mdashThrough the present writ petition, a writ in the nature of certiorari is sought for quashing of the order dated 24.11.2005
passed by respondent No. 4 and order dated 24.03.2008 passed by respondent No. 2, whereby, the petitioner has been compulsorily retired and
the appeal was dismissed, respectively. The facts, in short, are that the on 01.01.1976, the petitioner joined the Ch. Mohd. Yasin Khan, Meo High
School, Nuh District Mewat as Social Study Master. He continued to work there without any problem. However, on 04.07.2005, a notice was
issued to the petitioner to explain that the result of the subject taught by him i.e. English for 8th and 10th Classes is unsatisfactory. He was given
notice with respect to English subject of 8th Class. On receipt of the notice, the petitioner submitted reply to the same on 11.07.2005. He
specifically pointed out in the reply that in the last three months of the previous session, extra classes have been taken by the petitioner. It has
further been pointed out in the reply that he has been taking interest by taking extra classes for teaching to improve the result. The respondent No.
4, after receipt of the reply of the petitioner, though specifically admitted in the communication dated 08.08.2005 that the petitioner had made
efforts to improve by taking extra period but the required result was not achieved and he may be fully aware regarding the deficiency in this regard.
Resultantly, the petitioner was warned and it was stated that necessary action will be taken after the evaluation of the result of the current year. On
24.11.2005, under Clause 1 of Rule 11 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and contributory Provident Fund) Rules 2001, the
petitioner was issued the order of compulsory retirement. The petitioner preferred an appeal before respondent No. 2 against the order dated
24.11.2005 passed by the Manager, Ch. Mohd. Yasin Khan Meo High School, Nuh (Mewat). He, however, dismissed the appeal vide order
dated 24.03.2008.
2. While impugning the said orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent No. 4 has given four reasons for coming to the
conclusion that the services of the petitioner are not required in public interest. It is stated that the reasons given are stigmatic in character and the
petitioner could not have been compulsory retired without holding any inquiry into the same. The respondent No. 4 has not even cared to follow
the principle of natural justice in as much as the petitioner has not been asked to give any explanation.
3. Secondly, the result of the petitioner of English subject from the Session 1998-99 to 2003-04 was always good; varying from 34.04% to
41.33%, whereas, in the academic session 2001-02, it was 87%. In the Academic Session 2004-05, the petitioner has not taught 10th Class and
the same was taught by Md. Waseem and the result was 18.75%. The result of the 8th Class taught by the petitioner for academic session 2004-
05 was 49.15%.
4. Thirdly, with respect to the allegation of filing a Civil Suit, it was submitted that the petitioner and other ten employees filed Civil Suit No. 190
dated 25.11.2000 for declaration with consequential relief of mandatory injunction in favour of the plaintiffs to the effect that the plaintiffs are
entitled to get salary for the month of March, 1999 to November, 1999 and May, 2000 to September, 2000, which was not paid to the plaintiffs.
However, it is stated that the aforesaid suit was withdrawn by the present petitioner and four others since the matter was compromised. Further,
the petitioner had worked as Officiating Headmaster for two years i.e. Academic Session 1998-99, 1999-2000. The work and conduct of the
petitioner was good. After the completion of 20 years of service, the petitioner was promoted as Officiating Head Master. At this point of time,
there was no justification for compulsorily retirement of the petitioner.
5. Further, the allegation in the impugned order that the petitioner was called to attend the meeting of staff held on 24.10.2005, is incorrect. The
petitioner was never informed of the meeting of Teaching Staff held on 24.10.2005.
6. Lastly, the filing of the writ petition seeking release of the arrears of salary and other allowances cannot be made a ground for issuance of order
dated 24.11.2005 (Annexure P-4).
7. Reply has been filed by the Management i.e. respondent No. 4. It was contended that the result of Class 8th and Class 10th, which were being
taught by the petitioner, was not up to the standard and it was always below the pass percentage of the Haryana School Education Board. The
result was on the decline since 1998 and due to this reason, few students sought admission in this School. Further, the explanation given by the
petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. In order to maintain high teaching standards in the school, Management vide their resolution dated
15.09.2005 decided to review records of all teachers who had completed 20 years or more service and those who had attained 50 years of age.
Accordingly, records of teachers were reviewed. On review of he service records of Mohd. Israil, petitioner, it came to the notice of the
Management vide Office note dated 17.11.2005 that his results were very poor and were deteriorating year after year. From the perusal of the
office notice, it was revealed that Mohd. Israil had completed 28 years of service and his teaching results of Class 8th and 10th for the year 1998-
99 onwards were below the mark and result in each year was deteriorated. His performance as a teacher was not satisfactory and the result of the
classes he taught were below the percentage of the Haryana School Education Board result during the Sessions 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-
2001, 2003-2004 and 2004-2005. Ultimately, when the result of the classes, he was teaching, started showing downward trend and he became a
complete deadwood, there was no other alternative left with the Management except to compulsorily retire him from the post of the Master. The
petitioner was retired under Rule 11 of the Haryana Aided Schools (Special Pension and Contributory Provident Fund) Rule 2001 vide order
dated 24.11.2005 (Annexure P-4).The order of compulsory retirement was passed after due consideration of the performance of the petitioner.
Heard.
8. The relevant part of the impugned order dated 24.11.2005, vide which, the petitioner was compulsorily retired, reads as under:-
Your services are no more required by the Management of the School in the public interest as detailed below:-
1. You are not taking interest in your duties and hence the result of Haryana Education Board Classes being taught by you has remained below
Board results during the Sessions 1998-99, 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2003-04 and 2004-05. This deteriorating situation has resulted in defamation
of the institution and has damaged the career of students.
2. You have been instigating the teaching staff who filed a case in Civil Court, Nuh which dragged the Management into unwarranted litigation.
Later on, the case was withdrawn. This action caused financial burden on the institution.
3. On 24.10.2005, worthy President, Managing Committee called a meeting of teaching staff of the School. You were informed by Shri Rashid
Khan, Headmaster to attend the meeting. On your not participating in the meeting, you were again informed through Shri Lajpat, Peon. You
refused to attend the meeting. Your this action tantamounts to indiscipline and misconduct.
4. You along with other three teachers filed a writ petition in the Hon''ble Punjab and Haryana High Court against the Management without
bringing your demands to the notice of Management. You seem to be bent upon to work against the Institution and the Management.
Keeping in view the above facts, your retention in service is not in public interest and the institution.
9. A perusal of the above impugned order leaves no doubt that the same is punitive in nature. In fact, one of the reasons for compulsory retirement
of the petitioner is that he had filed a writ petition before the High Court against the Management. The same was held against him. Whereas, the
other prayer in the writ petition which was filed by the petitioner along with three others for the grant of subsistence allowance, standard scales as
per the instructions along with dearness allowance. Another ground for compulsorily retiring the petitioner is that he did not participate in the
meeting. The stand of the petitioner is that he was never informed of the said meeting. The said fact has been held against him even without holding
any enquiry. It is not denied that no enquiry was held. Thus, the very impugned order is punitive and stigmatic in nature which has been admittedly
passed without holding any departmental enquiry. The same cannot be sustained.
10. A similar view was taken by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of A.S.I. Radhey Shyam versus Union of India and others 2001 (2)
RSJ 172, vide which, it was held that the order which is stigmatic in nature amounts to penal consequences and therefore, such an order passed
without holding a regular departmental inquiry cannot stand. Another Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.B. Panihar versus Haryana
Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited 2001 (2) RSJ 240, while relying on the judgment of Hon''ble the Apex Court, set aside the order of compulsory
retirement being stigmatic by holding as under:-
2. Almost an identical order was passed on the same date by the respondents compulsorily retiring one Shri R.K. Panjetha, who was also working
as an Executive Engineer. Shri R.K. Panjetha challenged the order of compulsory retirement in this Court. However, the writ petition was
dismissed. Mr. Panjetha took the matter before the Apex Court and the Apex Court allowed the appeal of Mr. Panjetha and set aside the
impugned order of compulsory retirement. Copy of the judgment in Panjetha''s case, has been appended by the petitioner as Annexure P-30,
which is dated April 25,2000. The Apex Court after noticing the contents of the order of compulsory retirement passed against Mr. Panjetha,
observed as under:-
A bare perusal of the order dated 17.12.1998 retiring the appellant compulsorily would indicate that it is stigmatic in character. Since the order ex-
facie is stigmatic and is punitive, it cannot be sustained. The appeal is, therefore, allowed, the impugned judgment passed by the High Court is set
aside and the order dated 17.12.1998 retiring the appellant compulsorily from service is quashed with the direction that the appellant shall be put
back to duty with all consequential benefits. The appellant shall be entitled to costs, which are quantified at Rs. 25,000/-.
3. In view of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, we allow the writ petition and quash the order dated 17.12.2008, Annexure P-7 of
compulsorily retiring the petitioner, the same being stigmatic and on the face of it punitive in character.
11. In the present case, a notice was issued to the petitioner for the first time on 04.07.2005 as the result of 8th and 10th Classes was
unsatisfactory. The petitioner duly replied to the said notice and in response to the same, the Management accepted the explanation that the
petitioner had made an effort to improve the examination result by taking extra classes.
12. In somewhat similar circumstances, the Single Bench of this Court in the case of Mohan Lal Vohra versus State of Haryana 1992(2)642, while
setting aside the order of premature retirement held that the headmaster cannot be made to suffer even if the results of the school are not upto the
expected standards and the petitioner cannot be described as ''dead wood''. Para 5 of the said judgment reads thus:-
5. On an examination of the summary sheet of the petitioner''s record of service, as produced by the respondents, I find that his performance was
found to the range from ''good'' to ''very good''. It was downgraded only on the basis of the results of the school. It has not been averred or shown
from record that the petitioner was informed about the downgrading of his reports. Further, I am also of the view that once the petitioner''s
performance was assessed as ''good'' or ''very good'', it cannot be downgraded merely on the basis of the results. The overall results of the school
depend not only on the performance of the other teachers but also on the caliber of the students. Surely, a teacher alone much less a headmaster
cannot be made to suffer even if the results of the school are not upto the expected standards. On an overall consideration of the matter, I am of
the view that the petitioner cannot be described as ''dead wood'' which may need to be chopped off.
13. Coming back to the present case, the petitioner joined the School in the year 1976. Till the year 2005, there was nothing against the petitioner.
The respondents have submitted four reasons in their order while compulsorily retiring the petitioner. The same are stigmatic and passed without
any enquiry. The petitioner has, in fact, been punished for having tiled a Civil Suit and a writ petition. Such an order cannot be sustained and is
arbitrary on the face of it. Resultantly, the writ petition is allowed and the order dated 24.11.2005 retiring the petitioner and the order dated
24.3.2008 passed by the Commissioner and Director General School Education, Haryana, Chandigarh, vide which, the appeal against the
impugned order was dismissed is set aside. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been continued in service with all consequential benefits.
