Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

He was put on probation. Indisputably, the period of probation was required to be completed upon rendition of satisfactory service. Only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation would have been held to be justified. It is, however, well-known that when the foundation for such an order is not the unsatisfactory performance on the part of the employee but overt acts amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee is imperative. In other words, if the employee is found to have committed a misconduct, although an order terminating probation would appear to be innocuous on its face, the same would be vitiated, if in effect and substance it is found to be stigmatic in nature."

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied upon the judgment of this Court in "Sunita Rani Vs. State of Haryana and others"

[2011(1) SCT 525] wherein it has been held as under:
"This Court cannot ignore the fact that it was due to the publication of report in the newspaper that a preliminary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and thereafter, on the basis of that enquiry, her services were dispensed with. Therefore, the services of the petitioner have not been dispensed with because of unsatisfactory performance on her part but due to the YOGESH SHARMA 2021.12.02 10:30 I attest to the accuracy of this order. Punjab and Haryana High Court, Chandigarh overt acts, which amounted to misconduct. If that is so, it was imperative for the employer to grant an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Therefore, the order of termination of services of the petitioner (Annexure P-10) may look in nocuous, but the same, for its effect and substance, is stigmatic in nature. The order (Annexure P-10) was passed in compliance of the order (Annexure P-9). Thus, an opportunity ought to have been granted to the petitioner to show cause as to whether she had inflicted the alleged punishment upon the student or not."