Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

5. During the course of hearing of appeal it was contended by Shri K.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, that since the appellant had been appointed as PBX Operator in the High Court after due selection and since her services stood extended from time to time, her services could not have been terminated summarily by not extending her services beyond the period of extension already granted to her. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the post of PBX Operator is a continuing post in the High Court and even after the termination of appellant's services, the work is being done by one Shri Alok Sharma who is only a lower division clerk and who is not even trained as PBX Operator and hence the termination order is totally unjustified inasmuch as no complaint with regard to unsatisfactory performance of her work was ever communicated to the appellant. It has been further contended by Shri K.K. Sharma, learned Counsel for the appellant, that another candidate who was appointed alongwith the appellant is still continuing in service of the High Court; whereas the services of the appellant have been terminated without any notice, complaint or charge-sheet except for what is mentioned in the order, dated 11th January, 1991 as referred to above, that the appellant should improve her work and behaviour. It has been further contended that obviously the aforesaid remark is of general nature and by no means it could be stipulated that the working and the behaviour of the appellant was unsatisfactory. Moreover, since the appellant was allowed to continue on the said post upto 31st March, 1991 obviously implies that there was no complaint in so far her work or the conduct was concerned. It has been further contended by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was no occasion for the appellant to have challenged the legality of the orders, dated 5th March, 1990, 13th November, 1990 as also 11th January, 1991 since extension was granted to the appellant by the said orders and even assuming the appellant's appointment was only temporary appointment, yet the services of the appellant could not be terminated in the manner in which it has been done, therefore, non-extension of the services of the appellant was arbitrary, unjustified, unreasonable and malicious.

22. Likewise in the matter of U.T.I. and Ors. v. T. Bijay Kumar and Anr. (supra) the question which arose before the Apex Court was with regard to the termination of services of a probationer on account of his unsatisfactory performance. The Apex Court while placing reliance upon its earlier decisions in Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India and Anr. , Ajit Singh and Ors. v. State of Punjab, , Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, , Madan Mohan Prasad v. State of Bihar and Ors., and State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das, 1961(1) SCR 6G6, held that very purpose of placing a person on probation is to try him during the probation period to assess his suitability for the job in question. It is settled law that an order of discharge is not an order of punishment and, therefore, there was no question of giving a hearing before termination of service. Consequently it was held by the Apex Court that the Management of L.I.C. had acted within framework of the Rules and its decision ought not to have been up-set by the High Court. Consequently the Special Appeal preferred by the U.T.I., against the decision of the High Court was allowed. Applying the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court to the present case, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant was put on probationary period as PBX Operator and the temporary extentions were given to her only to judge her suitability and since her performance was not found satisfactory, her services were terminated.

25. If an employee is on probation and appointment is temporary, the work report is given by the person under whom he is working. No enquiry is contemplated in respect of any observation made in the work report unless it is alleged to be with any malice. If the employer is not satisfied with the work of such an employee who is on probation the services can be terminated without further enquiry or providing further opportunity to him. For a Telephone Operator if it is found that she is not available during duty hours or is hot attending the work with sincerety, the information from any of the Judge to the Addl. Registrar or by the satisfaction of Addl. Registrar otherwise is sufficient to come to the conclusion that she is not performing the service satisfactorily. The employer is entitled to review the suitability of employee during probation and evaluate the performance and if the termination of service of a temporary servant is on the ground of unsatisfactory performance that no judicial review is possible in such a case. The order which has been passed is of termination of service without casting any asperssion on the employee. No attending circumstances exist or could be seen.