1996 JTR(SC) 965
1996 AIR(SC) 2444 ; 1996 AIR(SCW) 2985 ; 1996 74 FLR 1936 ; 1996 6 JT 312 ; 1996 LIC 2063 ; 1996 2 LLJ 661 ; 1996 2 LLN 495 ; 1996 5 Scale 139 ; 1996 5 SCC 89 ; 1996 SCC(L&S) 1132 ; 1996 Supp2 SCR 844 ; 1996 4 SCT 255 ; 1996 3 SLJ 29 ; 1996 4 SLR 504 ; 1996 4 UPLBEC 2844 ; 1996 KHC 1736 ; 1996 5 Supreme 438
1996(5) Supreme 438
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K.Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
K.V. Krishnamani -Appellant
versus
Lalit Kala Academy -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 9058 of 1996
Decided on 10-5-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : S. Menon, Advocate for Pravir Choudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent : K.V. Mohan, Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The very object of the probation is to test the suitability and if the appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate the services of the employee.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.311(2)
SERVICE LAW : .
A) The provisions of the Service Law read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India govern the termination of an employee during probation, where the appointing authoritys finding of unsatisfactory service constitutes a valid motive for dismissal without the necessity of establishing misconduct through a formal enquiry. (B) The core legal principles are that probation is a testing period during which an employee does not acquire a vested right to permanent employment, and the reasons for termination during probation need only be relevant motive and not a foundation for misconduct. Facts of the case:
The Appellant was appointed on an ad hoc basis, placed on probation, and subsequently terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory service, including driving a staff car, leading to a challenge of the termination. Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that the reasons given were a valid motive and not a foundation for misconduct, and that the Appellant had not acquired a right to continue in the post during probation. Issues:
Whether an enquiry into misconduct was required when the termination was based on unsatisfactory service during probation, and whether the reasons given were sufficient to justify dismissal. Ratio Decidendi:
During probation, an employees services may be terminated if found unsuitable, and the reasons for such termination constitute motive only, not foundation for misconduct, so no separate enquiry is mandated. Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
A) The provisions of the Service Law read with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India govern the termination of an employee during probation, where the appointing authoritys finding of unsatisfactory service constitutes a valid motive for dismissal without the necessity of establishing misconduct through a formal enquiry. (B) The core legal principles are that probation is a testing period during which an employee does not acquire a vested right to permanent employment, and the reasons for termination during probation need only be relevant motive and not a foundation for misconduct. Facts of the case:
The Appellant was appointed on an ad hoc basis, placed on probation, and subsequently terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory service, including driving a staff car, leading to a challenge of the termination. Findings of Court:
The High Court correctly held that the reasons given were a valid motive and not a foundation for misconduct, and that the Appellant had not acquired a right to continue in the post during probation. Issues:
Whether an enquiry into misconduct was required when the termination was based on unsatisfactory service during probation, and whether the reasons given were sufficient to justify dismissal. Ratio Decidendi:
During probation, an employees services may be terminated if found unsuitable, and the reasons for such termination constitute motive only, not foundation for misconduct, so no separate enquiry is mandated. Result:
The appeal is dismissed with no costs awarded.
ORDER
Leave granted
We have heard learned counsel on both sides.
2. This appeal arises out of the order of the Delhi High Court in Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1990 made on April 30, 1991. The Appellant was appointed initially on ad hoc basis on March 3, 1987 and thereafter with a view to regularise his services, he was put on probation. During probation, his servicies having been found to be not satisfactory, were terminated by proceedings dated December 1, 1989. The appellant came to challenge the same by filing writ petition in November 1990 which was dismissed by the High Court. Thus this appeal by special leave.
3. It is contended by the appellant that since the averments made in the counter would constitute foundation for dismissal for misconduct, an enquiry in this behalf was required to be made. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent that during the probation the apellant did not acquire any right to the post. If on being found suitable he was regularised, only then he would have acquired the right to continue in the post. During probation, it was found that his services were not satisfactory and reasons were given in support thereof. Thus they do not constitute foundation but motive to terminate the services. We find force in the contention of the respondent. They have explained that the driving of the staff car was not satisfactory and that, therefore, they have terminated the services of the appellant during probation. The very object of the probation is to test the suitability and if the appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate the services of the employee. Under these circumstances, it cannot but be held that the reasons mentioned constitute motive and not foundation for termination of service. Therefore, we hold that the High Court has not committed any error of law.
4. The appeal is accordingly dismised. No costs.
Appeal dismissed.
*******