Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Final observation / recommendation including action to be taken by DVC on the appeal of Shri Arora made to Chairman, DVC for his reinstatement.
4. To review and recommend the general appointment procedures to be adopted for similar appointments in future to avoid controversy."

4. Taking into consideration the entire record as it existed and culminated in the passing of the impugned order or termination, the Committee proceeded to record its conclusions in its report of 05 September 2005. While examining the issue of validity of termination of the probationary engagement of the petitioner, it proceeded to record as follows: -

"1. Appointment was made by the Authority competent to do so as per the delegation.
2. Services of Shri Arora were terminated by the appointing authority on the basis of "Evaluation of work of Shri Arora" during probationary period.
3. Shri Arora is said to have been verbally warned for his deficiencies in performance and advised to improve by the Secretary and Chairman, DVC. It is also said that he was cautioned in relevant files.

9. Referring to the provisions made in that O.M., Mr. Mongia contends that the Corporation was obliged, in law, to undertake a due assessment of the work and performance of the petitioner in order to evaluate whether the services rendered were satisfactory or would warrant the extension of the probationary period. Learned counsel has drawn the attention of the Court specifically to the requirement of the preparation of probation period reports to submit that safeguards had clearly been put in place in order to ensure that the services of the probationer are not arbitrarily dispensed with. It was further stressed that the O.M. aforenoted also mandates that when a probationer is not making any satisfactory progress, he should be informed of his shortcomings well before the expiry of the original probationary period and thus affording him an opportunity to make efforts towards self- improvement.

11. Assailing the ultimate decision taken by the respondents in proceeding to terminate the probationary engagement of the petitioner, Mr. Mongia lays emphasis on the fact that the Committee's report of 05 September 2005 as well as the legal opinion which was submitted were not accorded any consideration at all by the respondents. Taking the Court through the conclusions which were recorded by the Committee, Mr. Mongia contends that it had been clearly found that no written warnings were traceable or found on the records. It was submitted that even the legal opinion which was submitted for the consideration of the competent authority, had opined that the termination of the petitioner would be unsustainable. It was further pointed out that the Committee itself had found that the circulars and officer memorandums issued by the Union Government did merit adoption and thus validating the stand of the petitioner here that the impugned orders are liable to be quashed in light of the provisions made in O.M. read with Regulation 6. It was lastly urged that the services of the petitioner came to be terminated by the Secretary when, in fact, the competent authority would be the Chairman of the Corporation. This submission is addressed on the basis of an order of delegation of powers dated 18 December 1997 and in term of which Mr. Mongia would contend that it is the Chairman who is to be recognized as the competent authority for appointment and termination of the probationary services of a Director.