Punjab and Haryana high court asks DAV University to pay Rs 10 lakh to teacher for illegal sacking

CHANDIGARH: The Punjab and Haryana high court has directed DAV University, Jalandhar, to pay Rs 10 lakh as compensation for illegal termination of a woman teacher seven years ago.

"We are of the considered opinion that a sum of Rs10 lakh would be an adequate amount of compensation which is liable to be paid by the respondent university in lieu of illegally terminating the services on probation, on the basis of stigmatic conduct as such and without holding an inquiry and, thus, violating the principles of natural justice," observed the court, in its detailed orders released on Saturday.

Division bench comprising Justice G S Sandhawalia and Justice Harpreet Kaur Jeewan of the high court passed these orders while allowing an appeal filed by Rama Rani, a former computer science teacher of the university. She had challenged the order dated March 29, 2017, passed by a single bench of the court, dismissing her petition against her termination orders during probation, which was extended from the normal period.

The petitioner admitted to having an issue in the university, where her colleague had allegedly marked her proxy attendance when she had gone out of university on account of ill-health. The university had terminated her services during the probation period without holding any inquiry.

In her appeal, the petitioner contended that if the veil is lifted, the probationer was not packed off on account of the fact that her services were not upto the mark and rather it was by way of punishment as extension had been granted 10 days earlier. Motive and foundation of the misconduct on account of the fact that the attendance had been wrongly marked was the apparent reason for termination.

Her main contention was that no regular inquiry was held and punishment of dismissal was there without framing of charge and was in violation of principles of natural justice. However, during the hearing of the case, the university expressed its willingness to reinstate the petitioner if she did not claim back wages. The petitioner, however, expressed unwillingness to join as she was expecting a child.

After hearing all the parties, the bench observed that in view of the changed circumstances, they were of the considered opinion that it would be not justified to reinstate the appellant and she could be given the benefit of compensation for dispensing with her services in a wrongful manner. The bench also held that such an order on the face of it, was stigmatic and could not have been passed without holding an regular inquiry.