Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Anoop. M vs M/S. Hindustan Latex Ltd on 14 February, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Transfer Application No. 3 of 2009
Monday, this the 14th day of February, 2011
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice P.R. Raman, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member
Anoop. M, Sree Sathya Sai,
T.C. 23/557,
Valiyasala, Chala. P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram,
Pin-695 036. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate - Mr. P. Sanjay)
V e r s u s
1. M/s. Hindustan Latex Ltd., Latex Bhavan,
Poojappura, Trivandrum-12, represented
by it's Company Secretary.
2. General Manager (P&IR),
Hindustan Latex Ltd.,
Latex Bhavan, Trivandrum.
3. M. Ayyappan, General Manager (Marketing),
Hindustan Latex Ltd,
Latex Bhavan,
Trivandrum. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate - Mr. V. Krishna Menon)
This application having been heard on 24.01.2011, the Tribunal on
14.02.2011 delivered the following:
O R D E R
By Hon'ble Mr. K. George Joseph, Administrative Member -
This is a transferred case from the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The applicant was recruited by the first respondent as Executive Trainee (Marketing) in the year 1996. On completion of one year as Executive Trainee (Marketing) he was promoted as Assistant Manager (Marketing) on probation for a period of one year. The applicant was elected as Vice President of a newly formed association. He was transferred to Madras on 5.3.1997. He reported for duty at Madras on 7.2.1998 after availing leave on medical grounds. He was transferred to Ghaziabad and was assigned charge of marketing operations in the State of Punjab on 18.5.1998. His probation was extended for six months on the ground of poor performance as per letter dated 4th July, 1998. He was served with a transfer order for Manipur on 19th August, 1998. He applied for medical leave from 8.9.1998 to 21.9.1998 as he had some personal problems. He had informed the respondents that he would join duty at Imphal on 20th December, 1998. Vide order dated 30.11.1998 as the applicant's performance during the extended period of probation was not found satisfactory, the probation was neither extended nor he was confirmed as per Clause-3 of placement order dated 8.7.1997. Aggrieved by the termination of his service, the applicant has filed this petition.
2. The applicant submitted that his performance was never poor and hence there was no question of his service being terminated due to poor performance. The clause in the appointment order giving right to terminate the service of the applicant at the pleasure of the respondents is arbitrary and illegal. The order of termination of service of the applicant because of his unsatisfactory performance is a mere camouflage. The termination of the service of the applicant due to his union activities and because of the exposure of the corrupt deals going on in the Company, cannot be sustained since the same is punitive in nature. The only reason for the termination of his service is his joining the union and immediate cause was the report regarding the corrupt transactions.
3. The respondents opposed the OA. It was stated in the reply statement that the allegations against the transfer order of the applicant are raised as an afterthought without any bonafides. The applicant had accepted the order of transfer without raising any objection or protest. The applicant's performance was evaluated by the reporting and the reviewing officers. It was based on the said evaluation that the appropriate authority had decided to extend the period of probation by six months. The applicant accepted the extension of probation without any objection. No disciplinary action for any misconduct was initiated against the applicant. Therefore, the termination of the service of the applicant cannot be termed as punitive. The applicant was discharged from service invoking the powers under the clause-3 of the appointment order. It is settled law that the management is entitled to assess the suitability of the probationer and termination of service on the basis of such assessment is not punitive.
4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the applicant Mr. P. Sanjay and learned counsel appearing for the respondents Mr. V. Krishana Menon and perused the records.
5. The applicant was appointed as Assistant Manager (Marketing) on probation for a period of one year. His period of probation was extended by six months on account of his poor performance vide order dated 4th July, 1998. The applicant did not challenge the extension of the probation period. During his probation period the applicant was transferred three times. These transfers were accepted without any challenge by the applicant. Vide order dated 30.11.1998 as the performance of the applicant was not found satisfactory during the extended period of probation also his probation was neither extended nor he was confirmed as per clause-3 of his placement order dated 8.7.1997. Accordingly his service stood terminated with effect from 12.12.1998 on close of the period of probation. The termination of the service of the applicant was in accordance with clause -3 of the appointment order. The order of termination was solely based on unsatisfactory performance in terms of the conditions of the appointment order. Therefore, the order of termination of his service is an order simplicitor and judicial review is not possible as held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Mathew P. Thomas Vs. Civil Supplies Corporation - 2003(1) KLT 874 SC. Before terminating the service of the probationer for unsatisfactory performance no notice of hearing need be issued. The period of probation is intended to assess the work of the probationer. If the competent authority comes to the conclusion that the probationer is unsuitable for the job, he can be discharged on account of inadequacy for the job. Termination of service on the ground of unsatisfactory performance cannot be termed punitive.
6. In our considered view the termination of service of the applicant while he was a probationer is valid. Devoid of merit the Transfer Application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
(K. GEORGE JOSEPH) (JUSTICE P.R. RAMAN) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER "SA"