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.

"..............................................................................................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.

21. Again in Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra (2008) 3 SCC 310, the Hon'ble Apex Court examined the correctness of the order passed by the School Tribunal constituted under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which was approved by the High Court, quashing the termination of the service of respondent No.1 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation and observed:

"The law with regard to termination of the services of a probationer is well established and it has been repeatedly held that such a power lies with the appointing authority which is at liberty to terminate the services of a probationer if it finds the performance of the probationer to be unsatisfactory during the period of probation. The assessment has to be made by the appointing authority itself and the satisfaction is that of the appointing authority as well. Unless a stigma is attached to the termination or the probationer is called upon to show cause for any shortcoming which may subsequently be the cause for termination of the probationer's service, the management or the appointing authority is not required to give any explanation or reason for terminating the services except informing him that his services have been found to be unsatisfactory."

22. We may also make reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences, (2006) 4 SCC 469, wherein a similar letter was issued to the concerned employee intimating that his performance was unsatisfactory and therefore, he is not suitable for confirmation, negating the contentions raised by the employee that the termination on the ground of alleged misconduct was stigmatic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the order of termination due to unsatisfactory performance is a termination 'simpliciter' and not 'punitive' in nature.