Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: unsatisfactory performance in Deepak Sudhan Bahuguna vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 28 November, 2003Matching Fragments
1. Applicant impugns respondents' order dated 4.4.2003 extending the period of probation for a period of six months w.e.f. 28.10.2002 as well as order dated 24.7.2003, wherein, on expiry of extended period assessed applicant not fit to continue on the post of Master (English) applicant was reverted back to the substantive post of Assistant Master. Quashing of the aforesaid has been sought with all consequential benefits.
2. Applicant was appointed as Assistant Master on 1.7.94 at Military School Chail. In view of the notification for the post of Master (English) which was to be processed through UPSC applicant being fully eligible as per the recruitment rules notified under Article 309 of the Constitution of India for the post of Master applied for the post and on interview and other formalities applicant was offered the post of Master (English) Group 'B' post at Rashtriya Indian Military College (IRMS) vide letter dated 29.9.2000. The post was permanent but the initial appointment was on temporary basis. The probation period of two years as per recruitment rules and also the conditions as per the condition was prescribed, which was extendable in the event of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation. One of the conditions were the incumbent fails to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority renders him liable to be discharge from service or to be reverted to the parent department in case the lien against the post has been maintained. Applicant accepted the terms and conditions and tendered his technical resignation which was accepted vide letter dated 25.10.2000 by his parent department. During the period when applicant was working in IRMS he was issued several counselling letters and was alleged with various allegations including appearing in drunken state making his integrity doubtful. Though the result of applicant remained par excellent in so far as past percentage in English is concerned.
18. In so far as deemed confirmation is concerned, it is stated that as per the terms and conditions of his employment applicant was put on a probation for a period of two years which was extendable on unsatisfactory performance and failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the Competent Authority renders either discharge or reversion. In such a situation the case of applicant for deemed confirmation is not sustainable in the light of the decision of the Apex Court on High Court of M. P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar, (2001) 7 SCC 161, as despite expiry of probation period as well as extended period of probation till a specific order and a sine qua non of satisfactory performance has not been arrived at by the Competent Authority applicant's status remained as a probationer.
20. Further referring to the decision of the Apex Court in Wasim Beg v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., JT 1998(2) SC 354, it is contended that there is no question of any deemed confirmation.
21. It is stated that applicant had accepted the terms and conditions in the appointment order and had not challenged the same. He has also not assailed his extension of probation. The counselling letters and the censure awarded have remained unchallenged. In these circumstances observing applicant unfit on the basis of unsatisfactory performance is the prerogative of respondents and reversion or discharge of a probationer does not suffer from any legal infirmity.
"31. Thus, it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the language or words employed in the order of termination of the probationer to judge whether the words employed amount to stigma or not Point 2 is decided accordingly."
44. If one has regard to the above, applying the test in the conspectus of the present case in the reversion order referring to the probation period as well as the extended period of probation on the basis of assessment arrived at by the DPC it has been observed that applicant was assessed not fit to be continued on the post of Master. The aforesaid, by no stretch of imagination can be termed as a stigmatic order. The "Apex Court in Bhagwan Singh's case (supra) held that even if the words 'unsatisfactory performance' are reflected in the order, yet stigma cannot be imputed. It is the assessment of performance of applicant which has formed the basis of reversion. This is not a stigma. The aforesaid order in the light of the aforesaid decision cannot be held to be stigmatic. Moreover, it is not the reply of respondents which would be considered and to be read to level only stigma as a justification in response to the averment of applicant regarding his satisfactory performance. Rebuttal to that with material to indicate unsatisfactory performance results in expression of particulars of motive as well as unsatisfactory performance of applicant which should not be construed as stigma. Stigma should be explicit in the order or in any of the referred Annexures which do not exist in the present case.