P&H HC Upholds Education Instructor’s Termination After He Could Substantiate Only 2.5 Of Required 5 Teaching Years

A recruitment notice for Education Instructors at C-PYTE required at least five years’ teaching experience.

The petitioner was selected on contract in 2010 and submitted experience certificates from Arya Senior Secondary School and DAV Public School, Dhuri

Following a Vigilance Bureau enquiry into the recruitment process, departmental proceedings were initiated under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. The Inquiry Officer found that the petitioner had not established the genuineness of his certificates or the required five years’ experience; his contractual services were terminated on 22 January 2016

The petitioner challenged the Vigilance Report, departmental enquiry report and termination order, alleging, among other things, inadequate verification, non-supply of relied-upon documents, failure to consider a cancellation report, and lack of authority and notice

Article 226 judicial review does not permit the High Court to act as an appellate authority by reassessing evidence in a departmental enquiry.

Under CIFC v. Abrar Ali, relying on State Bank of Bikaner and Jaipur v. Nemi Chand Nalwaiya, interference with disciplinary findings is warranted where they are based on no evidence, are perverse, or where natural justice, statutory rules or other legal requirements have been violated

Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan similarly confines review to errors of law or procedure resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of natural justice

The proceedings were initiated under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970

The Inquiry Officer’s conclusion was not based solely on the petitioner’s failure to attend on the final enquiry date.

The petitioner acknowledged that his two certificates covered only approximately two years and six months, stated that he had no other written certificate for the remaining period, and did not later provide satisfactory verification or supporting documents

Although inability to verify a certificate is distinct from proof of fabrication, the petitioner still had to establish the required five years’ experience; the material before the Court showed that the certificates accounted for substantially less

The alleged cancellation report did not conclusively establish eligibility, and the petitioner did not demonstrate that the order was passed by an authority wholly lacking jurisdiction

Applying the limited standard of judicial review, the Court declined to reweigh the evidence or substitute its own factual conclusion

Any pending miscellaneous applications were also disposed of