Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

2. We may at the outset, set out the relevant facts before we advert to the controversy in detail. The petitioner had joined National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) Head Office, New Delhi as a Junior Assistant on contract basis on 10.01.1999 at a consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of five years. After completion of five years service, the petitioner was appointed in the same department as Junior Assistant (Grade C) on 19.5.2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75- 3950-80-4590 for a period of three years. Before the completion of the three years period, the petitioner was again appointed as a Research Assistant (Grade B) on 5.12.2005 on a higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-175- 9000, for a period of three years. The petitioner was appointed against the regular post of Research Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000, purely on temporary basis w.e.f. 15.2.2008 and was posted at NIFT, Head Office on the recommendations made by Selection Committee and with the approval of DG, NIFT. In terms of the appointment letter dated 15.2.2008, the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 15.2.2008 forenoon and this period could be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. The services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of his probation by the impugned order dated 2.4.2009. The said termination order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A. No. 1059/2010 wherein the learned Tribunal directed respondent No. 1 to consider the representation made by the petitioner, against the termination order, and to pass a speaking order to that effect. Respondent No. 1 decided the representation filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order on 8.2.2011. Pursuant to this, petitioner filed fresh O.A. being OA No. 935 of 2011, to challenge the termination order dated 02.04.2009 and the speaking order dated 8.2.2011, respectively, passed by the respondents. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the controversy found no fault with the decision of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner due to his unsatisfactory performance during his probation period. Placing reliance on the ratio of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal held that there has to be some cause on the basis of which the services of an employee on probation are terminated and if the termination is only due to unsatisfactory performance then the question of abiding by the principal of natural justice would not arise. The learned Tribunal also found that the order of termination is not stigmatic rather it is termination simpliciter on the basis of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

"National Institute of Fashion Technology NIFT Head Office, New Delhi Establishment- II Department File No. NIFT/HO/Estt-II/Rect (Reg. & Cont)/ 2007 15th February, 2008 ORDER On the recommendation of the Selection Committee and with the approval of the DG-NIFT, Mr. Suresh Chand Jain working as Research Assistant on contract basis at NIFT Head Office is appointed on purely temporary basis against regular post of Research Assistant in the pay scale of Rs. Rs.5500-175- 9000/- w.e.f. 15th February, 2008 (Forenoon) and posted at NIFT Head Office.

9. Before the petitioner could complete the said probation period of two years, his services were terminated by order dated 02.04.2009 passed by the respondents and the said letter dated 02.04.2009 is reproduced hereby in verbatim:

"National Institute of Fashion Technology NIFT Head Office, New Delhi Establishment- II Department File No. NIFT/HO/E.-II/Delhi Centre/ 2008 15th February, 2008 ORDER The services of Shri Suresh Chand Jain, Research Assistant, NIFT Delhi Centre have not been found to be satisfactory by NIFT Delhi Centre. As per terms and conditions of his probation, his appointment can be terminated by giving one month notice or one month pay and allowances in lieu thereof, accordingly, with the approval of Competent Authority, his services are terminated w.e.f. 2nd April, 2009 (Afternoon) by paying him one month pay and allowances in lieu of one month notice period.
"..............................................................................................As informed by NIFT Delhi Centre, the performance of Sh. Suresh Chand Jain, Research Assistant, then posted in Exam Cell, NIFT Delhi Centre was not found to be satisfactory by NIFT Delhi Centre and they termination of his services.
As per report forwarded by NIFT Delhi Centre, regarding performance of Suresh Chand Jain, Research Assistant was assigned the work relating to receiving of assignment, preparation of result of F&A Department. He forwarded the assignment for evaluation to the subject faculty quite late. Consequently, assignment marks could not be forwarded by the subject faculty on time as well as marks could not be displayed on the notice board as per the scheduled dates. Further, he failed in coordinating and maintaining proper follow-up with the subject faculty in connection with obtaining the marks of assignment/ Mid Term/ End Term et., which hindered the process of forwarding marks to COE Cell, NIFT Head Office for tabulation of results expeditiously. Further, on number of occasions, he was found absenting from his seat during office hours and was issued warning letter to be punctual and more careful in his work approach. However, he showed no improvement in this regard. Due to lapse, as brought out above, on his part and unsatisfactory performance, he was removed from CEO Cell and as none of the department in Delhi Centre was willing to take his services, he was surrendered to NIFT Head Office. As such, his services were found to be absolutely dissatisfactory without any chance of improvement.