Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union Of India on 1 November, 1957
It, is not in dispute that the appellant was never confirmed
in his appointment. It is also not in dispute that though
the letter of appointment said that the appellant will be on
probation for a period of one year, his probation period was
extended from time to time. We agree with the High Court
that though the letter of appointment did not say in so many
words that the probation was likely to be extended, it was
implicit therein that the probation would continue till such
time as the appellant was confirmed or discharged and so
would the-term in the appointment letter that his services
were liable to be terminated without any notice and without
any cause being assigned, during the period of probation.
The first question that falls for determination is whether
the appellant is entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2);
for if he is entitled to that protection it is not disputed
that that provision was not complied with in this case
before his services were terminated. It is now well settled
that the protection of Art. 311 of the Constitution applies
to temporary government servants also where dismissal,
removal or reduction in rank is sought to be inflicted by
way of punishment. But it is equally well settled that
where the services of a temporary government servant are
terminated not by way of punishment, Art. 311 will not apply
and the services of such a servant can be terminated under
the terms of the contract or by giving him the usual one
month's notice . [see, Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of
India (1)]. Further it is equally well settled that a
government servant who is on probation can be discharged and
such discharge would not amount to dismissal or removal
within the meaning of Art. 311 (2) and would not attract the
protection of that Article where the services of a
probationer are terminated in accordance with the rules and
not by way of punishment.
The State Of Orissa And Another vs Ram Narayan Das on 8 September, 1960
A probationer has no right to the post held by him and under
the terms of his appointment he is liable to be discharged
at any time during the period of his probation subject to
the rules governing such cases : [see The State of Orissa v.
Rant Narain Das (1)]. The appellant in the present case was
undoubtedly a probationer. There is also no doubt that the
termination of his service was not by way of punishment and
cannot therefore amount to dismissal or removal within the
meaning of Art. 311. As a probationer he would be liable to
be discharged during the period of probation subject to the
rules in force in that connection. The High Court therefore
was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to
the protection of Art 311 (2) of the Constitution.
It is however urged on behalf of the appellant that the
rules themselves made it obligatory that Art 311 (2) should
be complied with before the services of a probationer were
terminated. In this connection reliance is placed on
Explanation 2 to r. 49 of the Rules, as amended of October
10, 1947. That Explanation read as follows : -
1