Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) in the case of a direct appointee, his services may be terminated by one month's notice or payment of one month's emoluments in lieu thereof, and,

(b) in the case of a promotee from the banks services, he may be reverted to the grade or cadre from which he was promoted."

7. From bare reading of the two regulations it is apparent that an officer, who has been directly appointed to Junior Management Grade shall be on probation for two years and the extension of probation is permitted for a period not exceeding one year. Regulation 16(2) forbids competent authority to extend the period of probation beyond one year by using the words "the officer's probation may be extended by a further period not exceeding one year." This means that the maximum period for which an officer of Bank could be on probation is three years. Regulation 16 (3) (a) provides that if the competent authority during the period of probation including the period of extension, is of the opinion that the officer is not fit for confirmation then the services of the Officer directly appointed as in the present case, may be terminated by one month's notice or payment of one month's emoluments in lieu thereof. The prohibition contained in Regulation 16(2) to extend the probation period not exceeding one year read with Regulations 16 (3) makes it clear that the competent authority has to take a decision either to confirm an officer or to terminate his service within the expiry of extended period of probation. It casts an obligation on competent authority to take a decision either way. Regulation 16 (2) is mandatory and, therefore, no extension of period of probation can be ordered from time to time exceeding one year.

8. For what has been said by me above, I am of the view that the competent authority is forbidden by Regulations to extend the period of probation beyond one year, yet in present case the competent authority extended petitioner's probation period from time to time so that the extended period exceeded one year. This is apparent from admitted facts. Admittedly, petitioner was appointed on probation for two years on July 28, 1986 and his probation period was extended from time to time after expiry of two years so that extension remained effective till February 13, 1990 on which date his services were terminated. The continuance of petitioner under extension of probation period from time to time exceeding one year is the bone of contention of petitioner for claiming that he stood confirmed under the Regulations and the termination of his services treating him to be probationer is bad in law.

9. As stated earlier, Regulation 16 (2) forbids extension of probation period exceeding one year. As the extension of probation period exceeding one year is beyond the scope of power of the competent authority, it is not possible to take a view that petitioner was on probation even after expiry of one year of extended period. Regulation 16 (2) is mandatory, the import of which is that in no way an officer can be continued on probation beyond three years from the date of appointment, two years being initial probation period with extension not exceeding one year. Besides there being prohibition under Regulation 16 (2) in respect of extension of period of probation exceeding one year in all, Regulation 16(2) also provides for confirmation of a probationer if he has completed his training satisfactorily while Regulation 16(3)(a) provides that if on expiry of probation period including period of extension the competent authority is of the opinion that the officer who has been directly appointed is not fit for confirmation, his services may be terminated. Considered in the light of such mandate by authority framing regulations, any extension of probation period exceeding one year is void. For said reasons I hold that the extension of probation period of petitioner upto one year is valid and beyond that it is void.

10. The next aspect which requires consideration is the effect of continuance of petitioner on extension beyond one year. The view I have taken earlier is that the petitioner cannot be treated on probation beyond one year and extension beyond one year being void, the continuance of petitioner on the post held by him entitles him to be treated as confirmed, on the principles of automatic confirmation. As petitioner was a confirmed officer, the services of petitioner could not be terminated by competent authority treating him to be on probation. The learned Counsel for Bank relied upon case of Municipal Corporation, Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra 1991-II-LLJ-343 (SC) which does not apply as in that case no outer limit for probation appears to be provided by relevant rule.