1996 JTR(SC) 1760
1997 91 FJR 55 ; 1996 Supp JT 17 ; 1997 3 LLJ 791 ; 1997 1 LLN 570 ; 1997 2 RSJ 754 ; 1996 8 Scale 426 ; 1997 2 SCC 191 ; 1997 SCC(L&S) 558 ; 1996 Supp8 SCR 19 ; 1997 1 SLR 136 ; 1997 KHC 3571 ; 1997 1 Supreme 187
1997(1) Supreme 187
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
K. Ramaswamy and G.B. Pattanaik, JJ.
Kunwar Arun Kumar -Petitioner
versus
U.P. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd. & Ors. -Respondents
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20481 of 1996
Decided on 28-10-1996
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Petitioner : D.V. Sehgal, Sr. Advocate, Ms. Suman Bala Rastogi and Ms. Monica Goswami, Advocates.
IMPORTANT POINT
During period of probation the authorities are entitled to assess the suitability of candidates and if they record a finding that during probation period the work and performance of duties were unsatisfactory, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms of letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry.
Act
Referred
:CONSTITUTION OF INDIA : Art.311(2)
SERVICE LAW : .
(A) The special leave petition invokes the provisions of Service Law and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which govern the termination of public service employment. The constitutional clause protects a civil servant against dismissal or removal without a fair inquiry, unless the terms of service explicitly provide for summary action during probation. The impugned order of termination was passed during the probationary period based on a finding of unsatisfactory performance, invoking the clause in the appointment letter that permits termination without assigning a specific reason. The High Court held that such termination during probation, grounded in an assessment of suitability and performance, does not attract the protections of Article 311(2) where the order is not based on misconduct but on a finding of unsatisfactory work. The interplay between contractual terms of service and constitutional safeguards is central to the dispute.
(B) Key legal principles include the scope of Article 311(2) protections during probation, the permissible grounds for termination without enquiry, the distinction between termination simpliciter and termination for misconduct, and the adequacy of a finding of unsatisfactory performance as a basis for summary dismissal.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on probation with a clause permitting termination without reason during the probationary period. His service was terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance and absence during probation, following which he challenged the order in the High Court on the ground that it violated Article 311(2) by not providing an enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the termination was based on the petitioner's unsatisfactory performance and unsuitability for the job, and not on any stigma or misconduct. It held that the respondents had lost confidence in the petitioner and that the termination did not require an enquiry under Article 311(2).
Issues:
Whether termination during probation on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, without an enquiry, is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
During probation, the appointing authority has the power to assess suitability and terminate service if the candidate is found unsuitable, without conducting an enquiry or attributing stigma, provided the termination is based on performance assessment and not on misconduct.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
(A) The special leave petition invokes the provisions of Service Law and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which govern the termination of public service employment. The constitutional clause protects a civil servant against dismissal or removal without a fair inquiry, unless the terms of service explicitly provide for summary action during probation. The impugned order of termination was passed during the probationary period based on a finding of unsatisfactory performance, invoking the clause in the appointment letter that permits termination without assigning a specific reason. The High Court held that such termination during probation, grounded in an assessment of suitability and performance, does not attract the protections of Article 311(2) where the order is not based on misconduct but on a finding of unsatisfactory work. The interplay between contractual terms of service and constitutional safeguards is central to the dispute.
(B) Key legal principles include the scope of Article 311(2) protections during probation, the permissible grounds for termination without enquiry, the distinction between termination simpliciter and termination for misconduct, and the adequacy of a finding of unsatisfactory performance as a basis for summary dismissal.
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed on probation with a clause permitting termination without reason during the probationary period. His service was terminated on the ground of unsatisfactory performance and absence during probation, following which he challenged the order in the High Court on the ground that it violated Article 311(2) by not providing an enquiry.
Findings of Court:
The High Court found that the termination was based on the petitioner's unsatisfactory performance and unsuitability for the job, and not on any stigma or misconduct. It held that the respondents had lost confidence in the petitioner and that the termination did not require an enquiry under Article 311(2).
Issues:
Whether termination during probation on the ground of unsatisfactory performance, without an enquiry, is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
Ratio Decidendi:
During probation, the appointing authority has the power to assess suitability and terminate service if the candidate is found unsuitable, without conducting an enquiry or attributing stigma, provided the termination is based on performance assessment and not on misconduct.
Result:
The special leave petition is dismissed.
ORDER
I.A. is dismissed.
2. This special leave petition arises from the Order and judgment of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated July 3, 1996 made on July 3, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 6676(S/S)/92.
3. The petitioner was appointed on January 15, 1990 in the pay-scale of Rs.550-1100/- with allowance; total remuneration was coming to Rs.1991.40. He was put on probation as contemplated under clause (2) of the letter of appointment which reads as under :
"You will be on probation for a period of 12 months from the date of your joining, which period may be extended from time to time at the discretion of the Management. During the period of probation, your services may be terminated without assigning any reason therefore."
His service was terminated by proceedings dated January 16, 1991 which reads as under :
"During the period of probation your work performance was found unsatisfactory. Therefore, your services are hereby terminated with effect from 16 Jan. 91 as per clause (2) of your appointment letter referred to above."
4. The petitioner challenged the order of termination in the High Court. The High Court without going into the question whether or not it is stigma, came to the conclusion that the respondents had totally lost confidence in the appellant and that he was totally unsuitable to the job for which he was employed and, therefore, he was found not entitled to any enquiry. Consequently, it dismissed the writ petition. Shri Sehgal, learned senior counsel for the petitioner contends that the finding recorded amounts to a stigma; action taken without conducting enquiry and giving an opportunity to the petitioner, is violative of Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the rules made thereunder. Therefore, he is entitled to an opportunity of being heard and be dismissed only on the ground of misconduct and not by termination simpliciter. We do not agree with the learned counsel. The order may be a motive and not a foundation as a ground for dismissal. During the period of probation, the authorities are entitled to assess the suitability of the candidates and if it is found that the candidate is not suitable to remain in service they are entitled to record a finding of unsatisfactory performance of the work and duties during the period of probation. Under these circumstances, necessarily the appointing authority has to look into the performance of the work and duties during the period of probation and if they record a finding that during that probation period, the word and performance of the duties were unsatisfactory, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms of the letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry. That does not amount to any stigma. If the record does not support such a conclusion reached by the authorities, different complexion would arise. In this case, they have recorded the finding that the petitioner was regularly absent on one ground or the other. Under these circumstances, the respondents terminated his services. We do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents.
5. The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.
SLP dismissed.
*******