Delhi High Court
Ex-Mt.Dvr Ravinder Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 19 July, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~12
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19th July, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 1054/1999
EX-MT.DVR RAVINDER SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.S.M.Dalal, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Saroj Bidawat, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Petitioner was appointed as a Driver (MT) under GREF
on 23.3.1993 and claims, as pleaded in para 4 of the writ
petition, that he completed his probation successfully. He avers
in the same paragraph that during his probation he was not ever
communicated 'any adversity of any kind' during his service
period; which expression we understand to mean that the
petitioner was never communicated any adverse comment
pertaining to his working.
3. In para 5 of the writ petition the petitioner avers that
no order extending the provisional period of the petitioner was
issued, which expression we understand to mean as conveying
that at the end of 3 years period of probation, the petitioner was
deemed to be confirmed.
4. Grievance raised is to the order dated 15.2.1997
terminating petitioner's service.
5. Petitioner states that since he had become a
permanent employee his service could not be terminated
without any inquiry. Petitioner claims that the order dated
15.2.1997 is penal in nature.
6. To a wishy-washy pleadings, the counter affidavit is
equally wishy-washy and thus we have perused the original
record.
7. Letter of offer dated 23.3.1993, vide para 5(ii) clearly
indicates to the petitioner that he would be on probation for a
period of 2 years and the probation may be extended at the
discretion of the competent authority, based on performance.
Thus pleading that petitioner was on probation for 3 years is ex-
facie wrong.
8. Vide said sub-para, it is further indicated that failure
to complete the probation or extended probation to the
satisfaction of the competent authority and not passing the
prescribed tests would render the petitioner liable to be
discharged from service.
9. Vide para 5(iv) of the appointment letter it is clearly
indicated that petitioner's service would be governed by the CCS
(CCA) Rules 1965.
10. Vide para 8 of the letter of appointment, it is
indicated that the terms and condition of service would be
governed by the relevant rules and orders issued from time to
time by the Government.
11. It is apparent that the service of the petitioner was
governed by the applicable service rules which Government has
framed for civil servants.
12. Record shows that on 23.1.1995, under influence of
alcohol, while driving vehicle BA No.88D-6421 (A Shaktiman
Truck) petitioner caused an accident for which he was penalized
and again on 10.10.1995 was found intoxicated and creating
problems for which 7 days' pay was deducted as fine.
13. The record shows that on 15th February 1996 an
adverse ACR comment entered in the petitioner's ACR for the
period 1995-96 was communicated to him as per which the
petitioner was found to be 'Average' and could do better if he
abandoned the habit of drinking alcohol while driving vehicle.
14. Record shows that on 2.4.1996 it was brought to the
notice of the petitioner that he had committed two wrongs on
23.1.1995 and 10.10.1995. He was further informed that on 26th
and 25th March 1996 he misbehaved in the unit location after
consuming alcohol. Petitioner was warned to be careful.
15. The file shows that on 24.3.1995, taking into
consideration the service record of the petitioner the probation
was extended by a period of 1 year i.e. from 23.3.1995 to
22.3.1996.
16. Record shows that on 21.3.1996 probation was
extended for another period of 1 year i.e. up to 22.3.1997.
17. As noted above, before extended probation came to
an end services of the petitioner were terminated vide order
dated 15.2.1997, which is non stigmatic.
18. The law on deemed confirmation of a probationer is
clear and stands very clearly noted in the decision reported as
2001 (7) SCC 161 High Court of MP Vs. Satya Narayan Jhavar,
followed with approval by the Supreme Court in the decision
reported as (2005) 13 SCC 179 Rajender Singh Chauhan & Ors.
Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. Three situations result in two
different results is the ratio which can be culled out from the
said two decisions. Situation one is where in the service rules or
in the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified
with a power to extend the same without prescribing any
maximum period of probation and no order is passed confirming
the probationer. The second situation is where the rules for
initial probation and extension thereof provide a maximum
period for extension and also provide that beyond the maximum
period it is not permissible to extend the probation. The third is
where the rules prescribe a maximum period of probation but
also require a specific act on the part of the employer to issue
an order confirming the appointment. It was held that no order
confirming the probation would not be treated as a case of
deemed confirmation under situation one or situation three.
Only under situation two would it be treated as a case of
deemed confirmation.
19. The logic of the reasoning is clear. If, as in situation
two a maximum period for probation is provided with a negative
stipulation that beyond said period probation cannot continue, it
follows automatically that if the probation continues beyond the
maximum period it has to be treated as a case of deemed
confirmation for the reason the negative stipulation prohibiting
continuation of probation beyond the maximum period
prescribed must take its effect.
20. Since the applicable rules i.e. temporary service rules
do not contain a negative stipulation of maximum period for
which extension of probation could be extended by stipulating in
the negative that beyond the maximum period it is not
permissible to extend the probation, the petitioner is wrong in
pleading that he would be deemed confirmed.
21. That apart, the petitioner was appointed on probation
for a period of 2 years with further clear intimation to him that
period of probation could be extended and this mean that the
probation could be extended by another 2 years. In the instant
case probation was extended firstly by 1 year followed by
another 1 year. Rules permit this. Before the second year of
the extended probation was over, services were terminated.
22. As regards the grievance of the petitioner that he has
been penalized, we disagree. As noted hereinabove the
petitioner was repeatedly warned to mend his ways. We are
satisfied that the termination during probation is neither mala-
fide nor it is motivated on an alleged wrong done by the
petitioner i.e. we hold the order not to be penal in nature or
founded on a misdemeanour.
23. The writ petition is dismissed.
24. No costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
J.R.MIDHA, J.
JULY 19, 2011
mm
