Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

7. Two   questions   arise   for   determination   by   the  Court   in   the   present   petition,   namely,   (i)  whether   the   services   of   the   petitioner   can   be  deemed   to   have   been   confirmed   after   the  completion of the extended period of probation,  when no order was passed either confirming her  on the post or continuing the probation period?  and (ii) whether the impugned order is an order  of termination, simpliciter, or is punitive and  stigmatic in nature? 

27. Now,   coming   to   the   second   limb   of   the  HC-NIC Page 44 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 submissions   advanced   on   behalf   of   the  petitioner,   it   is   to   be   seen   whether   the  impugned   order   of   termination   is   stigmatic   or  punitive in nature. As has already been stated  earlier,   the   impugned   order   of   termination  states that the services of the petitioner are  being terminated during her probationary period,  as they are found to be unsatisfactory. On the  face   of   it,   the   said   order,   being   one   of  termination, simpliciter, cannot be said to be  stigmatic or punitive in nature. To state that  the   services   of   the   petitioner   are  unsatisfactory cannot be termed as a punishment  or   stigma,   as   satisfactory   service   is   a  prerequisite   for   confirmation   in   a   post.   No  employer would like to confirm on the post, an  employee   whose   services   are   found   to   be  unsatisfactory.   As   such,   a   probationer   has   no  right to confirmed appointment on a post, as the  very fact of being placed on probation indicates  that   the   capability   and   suitability   of   the  probationer, for the post in question, are under  assessment.   The   fact   that   the   petitioner   was  HC-NIC Page 45 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 placed under probation would mean that she was  required to prove her suitability for the post  before  she  could  be  confirmed.  If  the  work  of  the petitioner is not found to be satisfactory,  the respondents are not obliged to confirm her  on   the   post.   The   petitioner   has   no   absolute  right to be absorbed permanently, especially as  she has not passed the examinations as required  by the Assistant Charity Commissioner Rules.

30. Reliance has also been placed upon a judgment of  the   Supreme   Court   in   the   case   of  Mathew   P.Thomas   v.   Kerala   State   Civil   Supply   Corporation Ltd. (supra), wherein it is held as  below:

"11. An order of termination simpliciter  passed   during   the   period   of   probation   has  been   generating   undying   debate.   The   recent  HC-NIC Page 49 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 two   decisions   of   this   Court   in   Deepti  Prakash   Banerjee   v.   Satyendra   Nath   Bose  National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta  and others [(1999) 3 SCC 60] and Pavanendra  Narayan   Verma   vs.   Sanjay   Gandhi   PGI   of   Medical   Sciences   and   another   [(2002)   1   SCC   520],   after   survey   of   most   of   the   earlier  decisions touching the question observed as  to   when   an   order   of   termination   can   be   treated   as   simpliciter  and   when   it   can   be  treated   as   punitive   and   when   a   stigma   is  said   to   be   attached   to   an   employee  discharged   during   period   of   probation.   The  learned   counsel   on   either   side   referred   to   and   relied   on   these   decisions   either   in  support   of   their   respective   contentions   or  to   distinguish   them   for   the   purpose   of  application of the principles stated therein   to   the   facts   of  the   present   case.   In   the  case   of   Deepti   Prakash   Banerjee   (supra),  after   referring   to   various   decisions  indicated   as   to   when   a   simple   order   of   termination is to be treated as "founded" on   the   allegations   of   misconduct   and   when  complaints   could   be   only   as   motive   for  passing such a  simple order of termination.   In   para   21   of   the   said   judgment   a  distinction is explained, thus: ­ "21. If findings were arrived at in an  enquiry   as   to   misconduct,   behind   the  back   of   the   officer   or   without   a  HC-NIC Page 50 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 regular   departmental   enquiry,   the  simple   order   of   termination   is   to   be  treated as "founded" on the allegations  and will be bad. But if the enquiry was   not   held,   no   findings   were   arrived   at  and   the   employer   was   not   inclined   to  conduct   an   enquiry   but,   at   the   same  time,   he   did   not   want   to   continue   the  employee   against   whom   there   were  complaints, it would only be a case of  motive and the order would not be bad.  Similar is the position if the employer   did not want to enquire into the truth  of the allegations because of delay in  regular   departmental   proceedings   or   he  was   doubtful   about   securing   adequate  evidence.   In   such   a   circumstance,   the  allegations   would   be   a   motive   and   not  the foundation and the simple order of  termination would be valid."

From   long   line   of   decisions   it   appears   to   us   whether   an   order   of   termination   is   simpliciter   or   punitive   has   ultimately   to   be   decided   having   due   regard   to   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   each   case.   Many   a  times   the   distinction   between   the   foundation   and   motive   in   relation   to   an   order   of   termination   either   is   thin   or  overlapping.  It may be difficult  either to   categorize   or   classify   strictly   orders   of   termination   simpliciter   falling   in   one   or   the other  category,  based  on misconduct  as   foundation   for   passing   the   order   of   termination simpliciter or on motive on the   ground   of   unsuitability   to   continue   in   service.   If   the   form   and   language   of   the   HC-NIC Page 51 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 order   of   termination   simpliciter   of   a  probationer   clearly   indicate   that   it   is   punitive   in   nature   or/and   it   is   stigmatic   there   may   not   be   any   need   to   go   into   the   details   of   the   background   and   surrounding   circumstances  in   testing   whether   the   order   of   termination   is  simpliciter   or   punitive.   In   cases   where   the   services   of   a   probationer   are   terminated   by   an   order   of   termination   simpliciter   and   the   language   and  form of it do not  show that either  it   is punitive or stigmatic on the face of it   but there may be a background and attending   circumstances   to   show   that   misconduct   was   the real basis and design to terminate the   services  of a probationer.  In other words,   the facade of the termination order may be   simpliciter but the real face behind it is   to get rid of services of a probationer on   the   basis   of   misconduct.   In   such   cases   it   becomes   necessary   to   travel   beyond   the   order   of   termination   simpliciter   to   find   out   what   in   reality   is   the   background   and   what weighed with the employer to terminate   the   services   of   a   probationer.   In   that   process   it   also   becomes   necessary   to   find   out   whether   efforts   were   made   to   find   out   the   suitability   of   the   person   to   continue   in service or he is in reality removed from   service   on   the   foundation   of   his   HC-NIC Page 52 of 60 Created On Fri Jan 08 01:55:25 IST 2016 misconduct."