Sippy murder case: High Court upholds termination of Kalyani services as college prof
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today upheld the termination of Kalyani Singh’s services as a contractual assistant professor at Post Graduate College for Girls, Sector 42.
An accused in the Sippy Sidhu murder case, Kalyani Singh had challenged order dated August 11, 2022, passed by the UT Director of Higher Education, whereby her contract was terminated “retrospectively”.
The Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Sudeepti Sharma asserted teaching profession was “indeed noble”. Educational institutions were regarded as temples of learning and teachers as mentors or gurus. An institution could not overlook the fact that an FIR was registered against the petitioner for murder under Section 302 and 120-B of the IPC, along with Section 25 and 27 of the Arms Act.
“Although the petitioner is not convicted, mere pendency of such grave charges places the institution in a position where it must act to protect its reputation and the faith reposed in it by society and the parents who entrust their children’s education to its care. Allowing the petitioner to continue in her role as assistant professor under the cloud of these serious allegations would not only set a harmful precedent, but also compromise the institutions obligation to prioritise the best interest of students and the broader public interest. Consequently, the termination of petitioner’s service is legally justified,” the Bench asserted.
It added that educational institutions were the makers/groomers of the best personalities. They helped in grooming the physical as well as mental personalities. Normally, no institution would admit a student or faculty undergoing the trial for offence against the society.
The Bench added that the petitioner was arrested on June 15, 2022, in connection with an FIR registered on April 13, 2016. Her services were terminated while she was in judicial custody by an order dated August 11, 2022. It was with effect from June 15, 2022, retrospectively, by relying on a clause in the engagement letter. It was stated that her work and conduct was not satisfactory on account of FIR and her arrest.
The Bench asserted that the engagement was purely on contract basis for the session 2017-18. She was granted extension for the session 2018-2019. The clause referred to specifically said the contract could be terminated without notice in case work and conduct were not found satisfactory.
She, along with other contractual employees, filed an application for allowing ad hoc employees to continue till regular employees were selected. The Central Administrative Tribunal directed the college to maintain ‘status quo’ qua the applicants, including the petitioner.
The Bench added that the FIR was lodged prior to the initial appointment order dated August 14, 2017. The petitioner was arrested on June 15, 2022. She was in CBI custody till June 20, 2022, and thereafter in judicial custody. She was released on bail on September 13, 2022.
The Bench asserted: “The undisputed fact is that from the date of her arrest till she was released on bail, she was absent from duty….As on date she is on bail and the trial is going on…. We do not find any infirmity in the termination order since the petitioner was engaged on contractual basis.”
What the Bench observed
Although the petitioner is not convicted, mere pendency of such grave charges places the institution in a position where it must act to protect its reputation and the faith reposed in it by society and the parents who entrust their children's education to its care. Allowing the petitioner to continue in her role as assistant professor under the cloud of these serious allegations would not only set a harmful precedent, but also compromise the institutions obligation to prioritise the best interest of students and the broader public interest. Consequently, the termination of petitioner’s service is legally justified.
