Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. The facts relating to the impugned order Annexure-G are : The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Sales Officer with the respondent-Corporation by an order dated September 11, 1987 Annexure-B. It is necessary to extract condition offered to the petitioner which is I found in Annexure-A :

"Your appointment is on a contract basis for a period of three years which is terminable at the discretion of Karnataka Silk Industries Corporation with three months, notice or salary in lieu thereof. This three year period shall be treated as our probationary period, I which is liable to @e extended at the discretion of the management from time to time and you shall continue to he on probation even after three years, till your services are confirmed.

7. I have considered the arguments of Mr. Gopal Gowda for the appellant and so Mr. Prabhakar for the Corporation. As I have already stated, the point involved is, whether the order of termination passed in this case is an order of termination simpliciter or it has been passed by way of punishment. In the sense, whether it cast any stigma on the appellant, it is necessary to extract last portion of the order Annexure-G to understand the arguments advanced on either side. The appellant has been appointed as I have already stated on September 11, 1987 the performance appraisal of the appellant for the period October 1987 to March 1988 reveals that, there are some draw-backs. So, he was censured on bond by an order dated March 24, 1988. It seems on (October, 1989 he was placed under suspension for cheating customers by wrong billing or for making wrongful gain, certain charges are also framed against the appellant. The Enquiry Officer went into the charges and the charges were proved. However, the appellant was reinstated on January 4, 1992 imposing punishment withholding of one increment without cumulative effect. Later, during September, 1992 an order of recovery has been made for the shortage of six sarees and the appellant seems to have filed a writ petition before this Court challenging the order of recovery. For the year ending March 31, 1993 the performance appraisal stated that the appellant cannot be trusted with responsibility and that he cannot take any constructive and positive decisions. A show-cause notice has been issued on June 23, 1993 and censure was imposed. Another recovery order has been passed against the appellant during December, 1992 and the appellant preferred an appeal to the Appellant Authority and it has been upheld. However, even though the appellant has been censured and orders of recovery were made upto October 1, 1993, his probationary period was extended by order dated October 1, 1993 Annexure-D upto March 31, 1994. Soon after the extension of the probationary period, a show-cause notice seems to have been issued on December 6, 1993 for recovery of certain shortages and an order of recovery has been made on February 8, 1994. Closely following this order, on March 31, 1994 Annexure-G seems to have been passed. The last paragraph of the order is extracted below : 'Sri Y. N. Krishna Murthy was appointed as Assistant Sales Officer in the Company on 13 years contract. The contract period would be treated as probationary period and the management had the discretion to extend the probationary period. Due to various circumstances as narrated above his probationary period came to be extended upto March 31, 1994. The post of A.S.O. in the company is a responsible position. Thelo' A.S.O. functions in charge of anyone of the showrooms of the company and is fully in charge of the stocks, cash and all other valuables of the Company in the showrooms. At any point of time the approximate value of is such stock is Rs. 20 lakhs. Therefore, the position of A.S.O. is one of trust and responsibility. The A.S.O. is also required to exercise co-ordination with his superiors in the Marketing Division in Head Office and also with his sub-ordinate sales staff in the showroom with a view to maximise sales. The A.S.O. is entrusted with a fair amount of discretion in dealing with customers, and hence he is expected to be vigilant in the performance of his duties and in taking due care of the stocks entrusted to him. A perusal of the confidential reports of Sri Y. N. Krishna Murthy and also the correspondence between him and the Head Office in the past several years reveals that Sri Y. N. Krishna Murthy is not suitable for the post of A.S.O. Although Sri Y. N. Krishna murthy was addressed more than once to improve his work and his probation was, extended to give him an opportunity, he has not done so.

13. The Supreme Court in this case has held, 30 the principle of tearing of the veil for finding out the real nature of the order shall be applicable only in the case where the Court is satisfied that there is a direct nexus between the charge so levelled and the action taken. In fact, the Counsel for the respondent relied upon heavily on this case, in support of his contention.

14. In the case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission, (supra), the Supreme Court upheld the order of termination simpliciter when the work of the probationer was found not satisfaction The Supreme Court has held as follows p. 16 "When the short history of the service of the probationer appointed in a temporary post clearly showed that his work had never been satisfactory and he was not found suitable for being retained in service and that was why even though some sort of an enquiry so was started, it was not proceeded with and no punishment was inflicted on him and in these circumstances, if the appointing authority considered it expedient to terminate the services of the probationer it could not be said that the order of termination attracted the provisions of Article 311, when the appointing authority had the right to terminate the service without assigning any reasons. In such a case even if misconduct, negligence, inefficiency might be the motive or the inducing factor which influenced the employer to terminate the services of the employee a power which the employer undoubtedly possessed, even so as under the terms of appointment of the employee such a power flowed from the contract of service, termination of service could not be termed as penalty or punishment. Further adverse remarks in the assessment roll and recommendation therein to extend the probationary period could not be said to indicate that, the intention of the appointing authority was to proceed against the employee by way of punishment.