WP(C) 2742/2011 BEFORE HON BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.D.AGARWAL (Amitava Roy,J ) Heard Mr KK Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr G.Sharma, learned Central Govt. Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.1. For the order proposed tobe passed, it is not considered necessary to issue form al notice. In challenge is the judgment and order dated 26.5.2010 passed by the learned Ce ntral Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench, Guwahati ( for short, hereafter r eferred to as the ’Tribunal’) in O.A. No.165/2009 negating the petitioner’s impu gnment of his termination from service vide office order dated 13.5.2009 of t he Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samittee ( for short, hereafter ref erred to as the ’institution’). The pleaded facts would be essential for the adjudication proposed. The petition er, who claims himself to be a Post Graduate in Biology, was appointed as a Post Graduate Teacher in the subject with the institution in the pay scale of Rs.650 0-10500/- by communication dated 28.7.2006 issued by the aforementioned authorit y. His appointment as the above letter would disclose ,was against a temporary p ost of PGT (Biology) in the institution. Clauses 2 and 14 of the said letter amo ngst others embodying some of the stipulations subject to which appointment had been offered, read as follows :- 2. You will be initially on probation for a period of two years from the date of your joining which may further be extended at he discretion of the competent authority. Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of t he competent authority will render you liable to discharge from service. Further during the period of probation your service can be dispensed with by the Samiti without assigning any reasons. While on probation, you will required to give on e month’s notice of resignation in case you leave the Samiti. 14. This appointment is subject to satisfactory report on verification of your c haracter and antecedents by the District Magistrate of the District you belong. In case of any adverse report, your service will be terminated immediately. The petitioner accepted the offer along with the stipulations so mention ed and joined the post on 11.8.2006. The initial period of probation of two yea rs as mentioned in Clause 2 of the letter was thereafter extended by a year vide office order dated 5.11.2008. The extended term of the probation period was upt o 11.8.2009. While the matter rested at that, by office order dated 13.5..2009, his services were terminated in exercise of power under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Services( Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’Rules’) and condition No.2 of the appointment lett er dated 28.7.2006. Thereby he was offered the amount of his pay to which he wa s entitled in terms thereof. Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the learned Tribunal and ass ailed the validity of the order of termination of his services. The respondents in their written statement while denying the petitioner ’s contention that he had discharged his duties with ’devotion and sincerity’ pl eaded that , the petitioner was in the habit of misbehaving with his colleagues and seniors under the influence of alcohol. The factum of lodging of FIR agains t him on 22.4.2008 for assault by him on a staff nurse and his consequential arrest was also mentioned therein. It was contended as well, that the petitione r had not revealed certain essential facts regarding his marital life including his divorce from his wife at the time of verification of his service book. Acco rding to the answering respondent, in the above facts and circumstances, on an o ver all assessment thereof, it was considered that he was not fit to continue in the employment and thus his services were terminated by the impugned order. Acc ording to them, no departmental enquiry was necessary to be held into the allega tions and bearing on the conduct and demeanour of the petitioner and that his ouster from service was by way of termination simpliciter. The learned Tribunal on a consideration of he rival contentions rejecte d the petitioner’s challenge to the impugned order of termination of his servi ces inter alia relying on the decision of the Apex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta v s. U.P. Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Another,(1992) 2 SCC 21. In substance , the learned Tribunal was of the view that the reasons for the termination of the petitioner’s services constituted motive and not the foundation therefor a nd thus the plea of unfairness and arbitrariness in action was not tenable. Mr Mahanta has emphatically argued that the respondent institution havin g extended the petitioner’s initial period of probation for one year on an asses sment of his suitability, the impugned order of termination is certainly not i nnocuous as represented and therefore this court ought to lift the veil and dete rmine the reasons therefor. According to him, the impugned action is unfair as t he petitioner had not offered any opportunity of hearing to represent against th e materials acted upon behind his back. The learned senior counsel therefore, urged that as the impugned order is stigmatic in nature , it ought to be ad judged as non est in law. Mr Sharma has not offered any comment as the respondents he represent ar e not the author of the impugned action. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on a consideration of the materials on record, we are left unconvinced on the pleas raised on beha lf of the petitioner. The materials laid before us do not demonstrate that the facts narrated in the written statement relating to the conduct and activities of the petitioner constitute the foundation of the action impugned. Apart from the fact that at the relevant point of time the petitioner was on probation an d his continuance in service was contingent on his satisfactory performance and over all conduct vis a vis the post that he had been holding, we are of the unh esitant opinion, having regard to the facts recited in the written statement tha t the action cannot be said to be unwarranted, the petitioner being a teacher in an academic institution. The materials on record available before us do not evince that a department enquiry was held into the facts bearing on the petitio ner’s termination from service.The impugned action followed on an over all asses sment by the concerned authorities of the academic institution about his suitabi lity to continue as a teacher thereat. Taking the cue from the decision of the A pex Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta (supra), the relevant extract whereof has been r eferred to in the decision of the learned Tribunal, we are of the opinion that t he conclusion recorded by it does not require any interference at our end. The stipulations under which the petitioner had been offered the appointment and tha t the facts taken note of by the authorities of the institution in terminating his services do not, according to us, justify his continuance in service. The petition therefore lacks in substance and is dismissed. No costs.