JUDGMENT Iqbal Ahmed Ansari, J. 1. With the help of this writ petition, made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity (hereinafter referred to as 'the Samity'), who was respondent No. 3 in Original Application (in short, 'OA'), No. 97/2008, has put to challenge the order, dated 09.09.2009, passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Guwahati Bench (hereinafter referred to as 'learned Tribunal'), whereby the learned Tribunal has allowed the OA and directed the respondents therein to reinstate, in service, the applicant, who is respondent herein and who is hereinafter referred to as 'applicant-respondent'. We have heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, appearing on behalf of the petitioners, and Mr. M. Nath, learned counsel, appearing for the applicant-respondent 2. The material facts, as discernible from the impugned order, dated 09.09.2009, may, in brief, be set out as under:- (i) Pursuant to an advertisement, published in the month of July, 2005, by the Samity inviting applications for filling up posts of Trained Graduate Teacher in various Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, situated across the North Eastern States, the applicant-respondent herein applied for the posts of Trained Graduate Teacher and, in course of time, she came to be appointed to a post of Trained Graduate Teacher (English) and joined the post on 25.06.2006, at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banduar, Udaipur, in South Tripura. The letter of appointment, issued to the applicant-respondent herein, made it clear that the applicant-respondent herein would, initially, be, on probation, for a period of two years from the date of her joining the post, the period of probation being extendable at the discretion of the competent authority and, failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority, would render the applicant-respondent herein liable to be discharged from service. The letter of appointment, so issued, also made it clear that even during the period of probation, the service of the applicant-respondent herein could be dispensed with by the Samity without assigning any reason and that the applicant-respondent herein would be entitled to resign, while on probation, by giving one month's notice, in writing, in this regard. Clause 4 of the said letter of appointment further envisaged thus:- Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya being fully residential institutes the teachers are required to stay in the Vidyalaya campus. Clause 4 of the said letter of appointment further envisaged thus:- Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya being fully residential institutes the teachers are required to stay in the Vidyalaya campus. In addition to normal teaching duties, the teachers are required to perform additional responsibilities attached with residential system like House Mastership, remedial and supervisory studies, organization of co-curricular activities, escorting of students on migration and in general looking after the student welfare. During the period of probation your performance in all these areas would also be assessed in addition to teaching ability to determine your suitability for the job. (Emphasis is added) (ii) As noted by the learned Tribunal, in its impugned order, the applicant-respondent was served, on 10.09.2007, with a Memorandum by the Principal of her school, which read as under:- Your class was observed by the undersigned several times and informed that you are very poor in English. You are further advised to do hard work to improve your teaching qualitatively. You are also instructed to prepare the lesson so that you can deliver the subject matter to the children effectively. Time and again you are warned, for not preparing the lessons. Your careless attitude will affect the English language and communication for the children. Quality result may not be possible when the students go to class X. This is the final warning to you that, without preparation, you do not enter the class and don't simply engage the students. You are asked to explain and submit in writing within 2 (02) days. The receipt of this memorandum should be acknowledged. (iii) In reply to the Memorandum aforementioned, the applicant-respondent submitted her reply by her letter, dated 13.08.2007, which read as under:- With reference to your memorandum the following are the reason for not preparing daily lesson plan for classes to be conduct on 10.8.07. I returned from Guwahati after attending the course. Ref. 1-6/JNV(STR/Train/2007/7216) on 9.8.07 at 4.45 p.m. on 7.8.07. The journey took around 48 hours made me extremely tired. As a result it was impossible for me to prepare lesson plan for the date mentioned above. As far as daily lesson plan is concerned for six periods on average it takes much of my time on doing the same which hampers my preparation time for classes. Despite of that also I involve myself in preparing daily lesson plan as well as preparation for class. As far as daily lesson plan is concerned for six periods on average it takes much of my time on doing the same which hampers my preparation time for classes. Despite of that also I involve myself in preparing daily lesson plan as well as preparation for class. For your information, I have shown you my daily lesson plan which has been duly signed by you. As mentioned in the memorandum that you have warned me time and again but it was more of an humiliation/mental torture in front of students, Grade-IV staff and teaching staff which instead of encouraging me has given me mental stress and thereby hampers my improvement. (iv) Thereafter, on 15.08.2007, the applicant-respondent herein received a note from the Principal, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banduar, who was respondent No. 4 in the OA. The note, dated 15.08.2007, aforementioned read as under:- You are served by an office order on 15.08.07 for not attending the flag hoisting programme as circulated to you a day before where in you have signed the circular on 14.08.07. You are raising a question towards your higher official asking why you have served this letter to me? It is nor good on your part to ask such a question towards your undersigned. By the by, you are also mentioning mat, why you are giving office order to me only, why not to Mrs. S.R. Kalai, PET(F), Mr. S.N. Pazare-PGT (Chem) and Mrs. A. Acharjee-PGT (Geo)? I am to state that the above mentioned teachers were on duty at the Parade ground, Udaipur, along with the forty (40) children for Yoga display as per the schedule of the District Administration. There, all of thousand attended and respect to the National Flag hoisting. Mrs. Acharjee-PGT (Geo) of this Vidyalaya, was relieved yesterday (14.08.07) by the undersigned on account of the telephonic message received by me as her father was in the I.C.U. for heart care (I was told - 2nd heart stroke). Accordingly she left the school on 14.08.07 evening by 6.00 pm by leaving the senior girls who are all the preparation of the Independence Day. This is for information, as you are asked explanation to the undersigned. Accordingly she left the school on 14.08.07 evening by 6.00 pm by leaving the senior girls who are all the preparation of the Independence Day. This is for information, as you are asked explanation to the undersigned. Now you are asked to explain in detail and submit, in writing, stating the reasons for raising the question and indifferent reply for your absence for not attending the Independence Day (flag hoisting at 8.00 am on 15.08.07. (v) Responding to the note, dated 15.08.2007, aforementioned, the applicant-respondent submitted her reply, which is reproduced below:- With due respect I beg to state that I was not feeling well (severe headache and fainting) Nurse Madam had given me first aid. After sometime I feel better so I thought to attend the Independence Day celebration. I became late and Nurse Madam also became late only because of me. I accepted your order because the fault was mine. But as far as the question is concerned why I had not asked such question. Yesterday was the Independence Day but I felt that I am not independent. Day before yesterday, I had applied C.L. for medical treatment and yesterday I was having severe headache and fainting. So this is the reason why we were late. This is my fault. (vi) On 24.01.2008, a meeting of the Departmental Promotion Committee (in short, 'DPC') of the Samity was held for considering the cases of the probationers. Having considered all the cases of the probationers including the case of the applicant-respondent herein, the DPC recommended termination of the services of 4 (four) numbers of probationers, while it (DPC) recommended the cases of 46 teaching staff for confirmation. The DPC also recommended extension of the probationary period in respect of 13 probationers. (vii) Acting upon the recommendations made by the DPC, the petitioner herein issued an Office Order, dated 11.02.2008, terminating the service of the applicant-respondent herein by taking resort to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and, acting upon the Office Order, dated 11.02.2008, aforementioned, the applicant-respondent herein was relieved of her duty by Memorandum, dated 18.02.2008, and she was also paid one month's salary in advance. (viii) In the OA, the applicant-respondent herein alleged that respondent No. 4, i.e., the Principal of the Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Banduar, used to misbehave with her and rebuked her without any reason and called her "bloody Indian", "dirty lady", etc.; but the applicant-respondent, being a subordinate employee, never uttered a word against the respondent No. 4 and continued to tolerate the misbehaviour of respondent No. 4. It was also alleged by the applicant-respondent herein that the respondent No. 4 used to call her to his chamber without any reason with ill motive and, one day, he even called her to his residential quarter and, when she did not go to the residential quarter of the respondent No. 4, respondent No. 4 became angry with her and initiated action against her, on false pretext, by issuing memoranda and note, as indicated above, and, eventually, the service of the applicant-respondent herein was terminated without providing her any opportunity of being heard. 3. The applicant herein resisted the OA by filing affidavit, the case of the respondents in the OA being, in brief, thus:- Though appointed as a teacher for English language, the applicant-respondent's command over the language was found much below the desired level and, upon observing her teaching qualities, respondent No. 4, as the Principal of the school, was compelled, on several occasions, to issue the memoranda and that the applicant-respondent herein was served with office orders to improve her performance and to be punctual in attending her classes. The respondent No. 4 also asked her to take note of the time table and not to part with her classes in favour of the Physical Education Teacher. This apart, the applicant-respondent herein was always late in preparing her lessons, that she could not prepare the lesson plan effectively to impart education to children and that most of the teachers were complaining of her attitude to the Principal (i.e., respondent No. 4 in the OA). This apart, the applicant-respondent herein was always late in preparing her lessons, that she could not prepare the lesson plan effectively to impart education to children and that most of the teachers were complaining of her attitude to the Principal (i.e., respondent No. 4 in the OA). The further case of the petitioner was that the service of the applicant-respondent herein had been terminated on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC, the Principal had no power to terminate the service of the applicant-respondent herein and what the Principal could do, he did by asking the applicant-respondent herein to improve her quality of work and that the DPC considered the performance of the applicant-respondent herein on the basis of the 11th monthly probation report, Special Performance Report as well as other reports and memoranda of the reporting/reviewing authority. 4. While considering the impugned order, passed by the learned Tribunal, what attracts our attention, most prominently, is that the learned Tribunal has observed, at paragraph 11 of its order, that the DPC recommended termination/discharge of the applicant-respondent herein on the basis of the unsatisfactory performance report submitted by the respondent No. 4 (i.e., the Principal of the school) against whom 'bias' had been alleged by the applicant-respondent herein. The learned Tribunal has also noted that based on a specific complaint of a lady teacher, police had arrested the Principal on charge of outraging modesty of a lady. The learned Tribunal has further observed that no independent enquiry had been made before passing of the termination order and that, upon taking the entire facts into consideration, it could not be said that the allegations, leveled against principal (respondent No. 4 in the OA) was baseless and that the order of termination, dated 11.02.2008, was passed without taking into consideration the principle of natural justice, though the termination order was based on the report of the Principal against whom bias had been alleged. 5. On the basis of the conclusion, so reached, the learned Tribunal allowed the OA by order, dated 09.09.2009, and set aside and quashed the termination order, dated 11.02.2008, and directed reinstatement of the appellant-respondent herein in service with full back wages. It is this order, dated 9.9.2009, which stands impugned in the present writ petition. 6. 5. On the basis of the conclusion, so reached, the learned Tribunal allowed the OA by order, dated 09.09.2009, and set aside and quashed the termination order, dated 11.02.2008, and directed reinstatement of the appellant-respondent herein in service with full back wages. It is this order, dated 9.9.2009, which stands impugned in the present writ petition. 6. While considering the present writ petition, it needs to be borne in mind that the petitioner herein, namely, Deputy Commissioner, Navodaya Vidyalaya Samity, terminated the service of the applicant-respondent herein by taking resort to sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. In the termination order, dated 11.02.2008, it is clearly mentioned that the applicant-respondent herein is discharged from service on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC. The termination of service, during probation, does not call for any notice to be given against the proposed termination unless the proposed termination is based on misconduct. 7. In the absence of any finding reached by the learned Tribunal to the effect that the termination of the applicant-respondent's service was as a measure of penalty, the order of her termination could not have been interfered with. This apart, it escaped the attention of the learned Tribunal that it was not the Principal of the school concerned, who had terminated the applicant-respondent's service. Far from this, the applicant-respondent's service was terminated on the basis of the recommendations of the DPC. 8. What may also be noted is that though the learned Tribunal has referred to the case of arrest of the Principal of the school concerned, the fact remains that the arrest of the Principal had nothing to do with the applicant-respondent's case. 9. As there was no nexus between the arrest of the Principal, on the one hand, and the termination of the service of the applicant-respondent, on the other, it is logical to conclude that the learned Tribunal took an extraneous fact into consideration in arriving at the decision of setting aside and quashing the termination order of the applicant-respondent herein. 10. Coupled with the above, it is also worth pointing out that the materials on record reveal that the memoranda, served on the applicant-respondent herein, as well as the note aforementioned were responded to by the applicant-respondent and she had offered her explanation to the said memoranda and the note, as the case may be. 10. Coupled with the above, it is also worth pointing out that the materials on record reveal that the memoranda, served on the applicant-respondent herein, as well as the note aforementioned were responded to by the applicant-respondent and she had offered her explanation to the said memoranda and the note, as the case may be. Her reply to the memoranda clearly shows that it was not her case, in response to the memoranda served on her, that the allegations, made against her, were wholly untrue or false; rather, she gave her explanation for her alleged behaviour and conduct Similar was the position with respect to the note aforementioned. Her reply to the note does not suggest that the note contained any false and fabricated allegation. 11. In such circumstances, as indicated above, the case of the applicant-respondent can, at best, be described as a case of disputed question of facts. A case, based on disputed questions of fact, could not have been resolved on the basis of the pleadings alone, but on the basis of evidence, which the learned Tribunal was/is empowered to record. A reference may be made, in this regard, to Section 22 of Administrative Tribunal's Act, 1985. Sub-Section (3) of Section 22 reads asunder:- Procedure and powers of Tribunals. (1) *** *** *** (2) *** *** *** (3) A Tribunal shall have, for the purposes of discharging its functions under this Act, the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code following matters, namely:- (a) Summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) Requiring the discovery and production of documents; (c) Receiving evidence of affidavits; (d) Subject to the provisions of sections 123 and 124 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872) requisitioning any public record or document or copy of such record or document from any office; (e) Issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses or documents; (f) Reviewing its decisions; (g) Dismissing a representation for default or deciding it ex parte; (h) Setting aside any order of dismissal of any representation for default or any order passed by it ex parte; and (i) Any other matter which may be prescribed by the Central Government. 12. 12. From a careful reading of sub-Section (3) of Section 22, it becomes more than abundantly clear that the learned Tribunal is empowered to receive evidence, on affidavit, in the manner as is done by a civil court, which functions under the Code of Civil Procedure. 13. Situated thus, it is clear that the learned Tribunal has interfered with the order of termination, dated 11.02.2008, without holding appropriate enquiry by recording evidence on the disputed questions of fact. 14. In the circumstances, as indicated above, it is clear that the order, dated 09.09.2009, passed by the learned Tribunal, cannot be allowed to survive, as the same would, if not interfered with, cause serious miscarriage of justice. In the result and for the reasons discussed above, this writ petition partly succeeds. The impugned order, dated 09.09.2009, is hereby set aside and the proceeding is remanded to the learned Tribunal for determination of all the disputed questions of fact by recording evidence in terms of the provisions of Section 22 of the Act. Petition Partly Allowed.