Chandigarh: CAT junks Kalyani Singh’s plea against her sacking as college professor

Ramkrishan Upadhyay

Chandigarh, February 28

The Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed an application filed by Kalyani Singh, an accused in the murder case of Sukhmanpreet Singh Sidhu, aka Sippy Sidhu, challenging an order issued by the Director Higher Education, Chandigarh, vide which her services as teaching faculty were terminated.

Kalyani Singh prayed before the Bench to quash the order dated August 11, 2022, and also to direct the respondents to immediately restore her services since the date of their termination.

In the application, Kalyani stated that she was appointed as teaching faculty (assistant professor) in the subject of home science in a government college on August 14, 2017. She was granted extension in service each year thereafter.

She stated that the UT police had registered the FIR in the alleged murder case in 2015 and she was not named in it. The case was transferred to the CBI in 2016. The FIR was lodged prior to her initial appointment in 2017.

She was arrested by the CBI on June 15, 2022. While she was in judicial custody, her services were terminated retrospectively by relying on clause 13 of the appointment letter stating that the work and conduct were not satisfactory (on account of the FIR and her arrest). Immediately upon her release from the custody, she submitted a representation to the Director Higher Education, requesting that she should be reinstated in view of the bail order dated September 13, 2022, of the High Court.

The respondents, however, stated that the applicant was engaged as teaching faculty on contractual basis for the session 2017-2018 or till her services were required, whichever was earlier. It was specifically mentioned that in case the work and conduct of the applicant was not found satisfactory, her contract could be terminated without any notice.

After hearing the arguments, the Bench comprising Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (J), and Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Member (A), stated that clause 13 of the appointment letter gave the respondents power to terminate the contract without any notice in case the work and conduct were not found to be satisfactory. In the case, the conduct of the applicant was considered on the ground of the FIR by the CBI and the ensuing absence and custody of the applicant from June 15, 2022, to the date impugned order was passed. The respondents exercised their power as per clause 13 and issued the order for termination of services. “We find this exercise of power neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. There is no reason to interfere with the order, so the application is accordingly dismissed,” the Bench stated.