PETITIONER: KUNWAR ARUN KUMAR Vs. RESPONDENT: U.P. HILL ELECTRONIC CORPORATION LTD. & ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 28/10/1996 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
I.A. is dismissed.
This 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.
The 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:
“You 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.
During 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:
“During 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 thereunder.
Therefore, 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 the respondents.
The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.