Arun Kumar Vs. U.P. Hill Electronic Corporation Ltd. & Ors  INSC 1337
(28 October 1996)
O R D
E R I.A. is dismissed.
special leave petition arises from the Order and judgment of the Division Bench
of the Allahabad High Court dated July 3, 1996 made on July 3, 1996 in
Writ Petition No.6676(s/s)/92.
petitioner was appointed on January 15, 1990
in the pay-scale of Rs.550-1100/= with allowance; total remuneration was coming
to Rs.1991.40. He was put on probation as contemplated under clause (2) of the
letter of appointment which reads as under:
will be on probation for a period of 12 months from date of your joining, which
period may be extended from time to time at the discretion of the Management.
the period of probation, your services may be terminated without assigning any
reason therefore." His service was terminated by proceedings dated January 16, 1991 which reads as under:
the period of probation your work performance was found unsatisfactory.
Therefore, your services are hereby terminated with effect from 16 Jan. 91 as per clause (2) of your appointment letter
referred to above." The petitioner challenged the order of termination in
the High Court. The High Court without going into the question whether or not
it is stigma, came to the conclusion that the respondents had totally lost
confidence in the appellant and that he was totally unsuitable to the job for
which he was employed and, therefore, he was found not entitled to any enquiry.
Consequently, it dismissed the writ petition. Shri Sehgal, learned senior
counsel for the petitioner, contends that the finding recorded amounts to a
stigma; action taken without conducting enquiry and giving an opportunity to
the petitioner, is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the
rules made there under.
he is entitled to an opportunity of being heard and be dismissed only on the
ground of misconduct and not by termination simpliciter. We do not agree with the
learned counsel. The order may be a motive and not a foundation as a ground for
dismissal. During the period of probation, the authorities are entitled to
assess the suitable to remain in service they are entitled to record a finding
of unsatisfactory performance of the work and duties during the period of
probation. Under these circumstance, necessarily the appointing authority has
to look into the performance of the work and duties during the period of
probation and if they record a finding that during that probation period, the
work and performance of the duties were unsatisfactory, they are entitled to
terminate the service in terms of the letter of appointment without conducting
any enquiry. That does not amount to any stigma. If the record does not support
such a conclusion reached by the authorities, different complexion would arise.
In this case, they have recorded the finding that the petitioner was regularly
absent on one ground or the other. Under these circumstances, the respondents
terminated his services. We do not find any illegality in the action taken by
special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.