CWP No.22835/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2010 Chaman Lal ...Petitioner VERSUS Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Vikas Malik, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) The petitioner who was appointed as TGT (S.ST) under Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan vide Memo dated 31.1.2007, joined his duty on 3.1.1007, as is evident from Annexure P-1. Since the petitioner's initial appointment was on contract basis, he was allowed to continue vide Memo dated 31.1.2009 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner was posted in Government Senior Secondary School, Kaimbwala, UT Chandigarh. It is admitted case of the petitioner that on 16.7.2010, scuffle took place between the petitioner and one student Master Ram Chander. The petitioner has made allegations against the said student that he taunted the petitioner and when the petitioner stopped the student, he held collar of the petitioner and slapped him. The matter was taken to police and also in the media. It seems that the management CWP No.22835/2010 2 of the School held an enquiry into the incident. Based upon enquiry report, the order dated 31.7.2010 (Annexure P-5) impugned has been passed which is subject matter of challenge in the present petition. The Enquiry Committee comprising of two officials concluded that some heated arguments took place between the petitioner and Master Ram Chander because the teacher had come late to the class, the students were standing outside as there was no electricity and the petitioner had told them to go inside the class and due to the fact that Master Ram Chander was disrespectful, the petitioner felt insulted, infuriated and slapped the student. The student also seems to have slapped in rebound. This was followed by a fight using abusive language and slapping one another and also kicking, tearing each other's hair and clothes and threatening one another. The teacher then challenged the student that he would see how they would pass the 10th Class. On the basis of the aforesaid enquiry, the contractual engagement of the petitioner has been terminated vide the impugned order (Annexure P-5). Apart from justifying his action in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the order impugned amounts to stigma and thus, the petitioner's contractual engagement cannot be dispensed with without holding the regular enquiry. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length. The factual background that scuffle took place between the student and the teacher is not in dispute. The Enquiry Committee while indicting the student has clearly returned a finding that the petitioner is equally rather more responsible for the unfortunate incident in the School. Suffice it to say that the petitioner being a teacher was required to act in a more responsible manner and not to come to the level of student to enter into such a scuffle, CWP No.22835/2010 3 including slapping, abusing and threatening the student. The behaviour of the petitioner under no circumstances can be appreciated. Notwithstanding the fact that there was scuffle between the student and the teacher, the fact remains that the petitioner was only a contractual employee. Irrespective of the incident, the Management seems to have not inclined to continue the engagement of the petitioner in the school. I do not find that the termination of the contractual engagement requires any regular enquiry as the petitioner is not subject to regular rules. In this view of the matter, I do not find any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4