Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.17 seconds)Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 3 April, 1989
11. Nonetheless the order of discharge cannot be upheld, as it is
stigmatic and punitive in nature. It is a matter of record that during
three years of service no order was issued extending the period of
probation of the respondent. He completed the mandatory period of probation
on 21st November, 2007, therefore, it was expected of the department to
take a decision about the performance of the respondent within a reasonable
period from the expiry of one year. It is also a matter of record that the
respondent continued in service without receiving any formal or informal
notice about the defects in his work or any deficiency in his performance.
This Court, in the case of Sumati P. Shere Dr. Vs. Union of India &
Ors.[1], emphasised the importance of timely communication of defects and
deficiencies in performance to a probationer, so that he could make the
necessary efforts to improve his work. Non-communication of his
deficiencies in work would render any movement order of such an employee on
the ground of unsuitability arbitrary. In Paragraph 5 of the judgment, it
is observed:-
Union Of India & Ors vs Mahaveer C.Singvi on 29 July, 2010
“25. In the facts of the case the High Court came to the
conclusion that a one-sided inquiry had been conducted at
different levels. Opinions were expressed and definite
conclusions relating to the respondent’s culpability were
reached by key officials who had convinced themselves in
that regard. The impugned decision to discharge the
respondent from service was not based on mere suspicion
alone. However, it was all done behind the back of the
respondent and accordingly the alleged misconduct for which
the services of the respondent were brought to and end was
not merely the motive for the said decision but was clearly
the foundation of the same.”
The Right to Information Act, 2005
1