Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(iv) Whether non-compliance of sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules would vitiate an order of termination of service simpliciter issued by the Management under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act when the said sub-rule deems that "work of an employee is satisfactory", while Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act gives power to the Management to terminate the service of an employee appointed on probation not only for "unsatisfactory work", but also for "unsatisfactory behaviour"?

18. ...
19. This merely goes to show that the said documents are not above suspicion and that the requirements of Rule 15(6) and Rule 14 had not been complied with prior to invocation by the school management of the powers under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act."

9. Nonetheless, according to the respondent-employee, the judgment in the case of Progressive Education Society (supra) had put the controversy at rest as the Hon'ble Supreme Court had clearly held that Rule 14 and entire Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules apply when decision is to be taken under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act for terminating the service of an employee appointed on probation, for unsatisfactory work or behaviour.

112. From the above discussion, it can be summed up by holding that the plain reading of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules does not indicate that Rules 15(1) to 15(5) apply to a probationer along with Rule 15(6) of the MEPS Rules.

Judgment 57 WP-5998-2019-FB.odt

113. Moreover, considering the language of Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act, it is evident that the requirement of unsatisfactory service referred to in sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act, is a matter of satisfaction of the management and the management has to see not only the satisfaction as regards work of a probationer but also his behaviour during the period of probation.

Q.(iv) Whether non-compliance of sub-rule (5) of Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules would vitiate an order of termination of service simpliciter issued by the Management under Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act when the said sub-rule deems that "work of an employee is satisfactory", while Section 5(3) of the MEPS Act gives power to the Management to terminate the service of an employee appointed on probation not only for "unsatisfactory work", but also for "unsatisfactory behaviour"?