CWP-11405-2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 107 BALRAJ SINGH COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR Present: Mr. S. K. Malik for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate with Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate, Ms. for the respondents/Parishad. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA The petition has been filed, quashing the order dated representation against termination order dated been rejected. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the was initially engaged as Vocational Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Badanpur, J 17.11.2015, Annexure P 18.01.2022, Annexure P Haryana School School Principal petitioner was allowed to 2025 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP Decided On: BALRAJ SINGH Versus COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD AND OTHERS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. S. K. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate with Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate, Ms. for the respondents/Parishad. TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA J.(Oral) The petition has been filed, inter alia order dated 01.04.2025, Annexure P representation against termination order dated . Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the was initially engaged as Vocational Teacher at Government Senior Secondary School, Badanpur, Jind, through an outsourcing agency vide Annexure P-2, and continued working as such. Vide letter dated , Annexure P-3, the third respondent/Joint Haryana School Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad School Principals not to relieve Vocational Teachers, was allowed to continue in service. IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11405-2025 Decided On: 03.09.2025 ....PETITIONER(s) COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HARYANA SCHOOL SHIKSHA PARIYOJNA PARISHAD AND OTHERS ....RESPONDENT(s) . JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Advocate with Ms. Simran Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocate inter alia, seeking a writ of certiorari 5, Annexure P-9, whereby the petitioner’s representation against termination order dated 06.07.2023, Annexure P-6, has Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was initially engaged as Vocational Teacher at Government Senior Secondary outsourcing agency vide offer letter dated and continued working as such. Vide letter dated third respondent/Joint State Project Director, Siksha Sadan, directed all the not to relieve Vocational Teachers, and accordingly the continue in service. He was, however, implicated in HARYANA SCHOOL certiorari , whereby the petitioner’s , has petitioner was initially engaged as Vocational Teacher at Government Senior Secondary offer letter dated and continued working as such. Vide letter dated State Project Director, all the the He was, however, implicated in Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-11405-2025 a criminal case 468, 471, 201 and 120 Station Kotwali, District Patiala released from custody dated 14.03.2023 Principal dated He was, however, not permitted to join duty vide letter dated the ground of remain any intimation and permission to misconduct on his part, and also for involvement further contended case, the petitioner could not have joined duty. Soon after the release, he approached the Principal should have been allowed to rejoin duty as it was on account of circumstances beyond his control that he remained absent 3. Learned counsel for the respondents/Parishad, however, contends that no intimation regarding the petitioner’s arrest or his involvement in any criminal case was ever willfully remained absent 27.03.2023, which is serious respondents had no 4. Heard. 5. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that no intimation regarding the Parishad. Accordingly, 2025 -2- case, FIR no.238 dated 11.11.2022 468, 471, 201 and 120-B IPC and Section 66D of IT Act Kotwali, District Patiala, and was taken in custody. He from custody only on 15.03.2023, pursuant to dated 14.03.2023. Thereafter, he submitted a representation Principal dated 28.03.2023, Annexure P-5, seeking permission to rejoin He was, however, not permitted to join duty vide letter dated the ground of remaining absent from duty for more than five months intimation and permission from the competent authority to misconduct on his part, and also for involvement further contended that on account of having case, the petitioner could not have joined duty. Soon after the release, he approached the Principal and sought permission to rejoin. Therefore, he should have been allowed to rejoin duty as it was on account of circumstances beyond his control that he remained absent from duty Learned counsel for the respondents/Parishad, however, contends that no intimation regarding the petitioner’s arrest or his involvement in any criminal case was ever given to the School Principal remained absent from duty with effect from , which is serious and grave misconduct on his part and the had no option but to terminate his service. Heard. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that no intimation regarding his arrest was ever given to the School Principal or the Parishad. Accordingly, he willingly remained absent 11.11.2022, under Sections 419, 420, 465, and Section 66D of IT Act, registered at Police , and was taken in custody. He could be , pursuant to the order granting bail . Thereafter, he submitted a representation to the School , seeking permission to rejoin duty. He was, however, not permitted to join duty vide letter dated 06.07.2023, on for more than five months without the competent authority, which amounted to misconduct on his part, and also for involvement in the criminal case. It is having been implicated in a criminal case, the petitioner could not have joined duty. Soon after the release, he and sought permission to rejoin. Therefore, he should have been allowed to rejoin duty as it was on account of circumstances from duty. Learned counsel for the respondents/Parishad, however, contends that no intimation regarding the petitioner’s arrest or his involvement in any to the School Principal or the Parishad. He with effect from 17.11.2022 to grave misconduct on his part and the option but to terminate his service. It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that given to the School Principal or remained absent from 17.11.2022 under Sections 419, 420, 465, , registered at Police could be l to the School . , on without amounted It is in a criminal case, the petitioner could not have joined duty. Soon after the release, he and sought permission to rejoin. Therefore, he should have been allowed to rejoin duty as it was on account of circumstances Learned counsel for the respondents/Parishad, however, contends that no intimation regarding the petitioner’s arrest or his involvement in any He 17.11.2022 to grave misconduct on his part and the It could not be disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner that given to the School Principal or 17.11.2022 Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document CWP-11405-2025 until 28.03.2023 Principal seeking petitioner was released from custody on for duty nor offered any explanation for his absence thereafter. This conduct cannot be decided not to condone can be taken to 6. In vie petition and it stands dismissed. 03.09.2025 Ad Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? 2025 -3- until 28.03.2023, the day he chose to report for duty and approached the cipal seeking permission to rejoin service petitioner was released from custody on 15.03.2023 nor offered any explanation for his absence . This conduct cannot be justified, and in case the authorities ha to condone his absence and treat can be taken to it. In view thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present petition and it stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Whether speaking/reasoned? Whether reportable? chose to report for duty and approached the service. It is also not disputed that the 15.03.2023, but he neither reported nor offered any explanation for his absence for about twelve days and in case the authorities have treat it as misconduct, no exception thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No chose to report for duty and approached the t is also not disputed that the neither reported for about twelve days ve no exception thereof, there is no ground to entertain the present Aman Dua 2025.09.09 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this judicial document