National Board Of Examinations vs Ms Rajni Bajaj & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 923 Del

       *        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                     Judgment reserved on: 30.01.2012
                                      Judgment pronounced on: 10.02.2012

+      W.P.(C) 58/2011

       NATIONAL BOARD OF EXAMINATIONS                         ...         Petitioner

                                      versus

       MS. RAJNI BAJAJ & ANR.                                  ...        Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner   :      Mr J.L. Gupta and Mr Mukul Gupta with
                            Dr Rakesh Gosain, Mr Sanjiv Joshi and Mr Achit
                            Sharma
For Respondent No.1  :      Mr M.K. Bhardwaj
For Respondent No.2  :      Mr Sachin Datta for R-2

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

V.K. JAIN, J.

1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 29.09.2010 passed by

the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter

referred to as „the Tribunal‟) in M.A. No.2023/2010 in T.A.No.1441/2009.

2. The respondent No.1 before this Court, Ms Rajni Bajaj was appointed as a

Data Entry Operator with the petitioner National Board of Examinations, vide letter

dated 04.07.2002 and was put on probation for a period of two years. The

appointment letter provided that the period of probation could be extended at the

discretion of the competent authority. Vide letter dated 18.05.2005, the probation

of respondent No.1 was extended for a period of six months with effect from

28.04.2005. Vide letter dated 05.12.2005, the services of respondent No.1 were

terminated by the petitioner on the ground that during probation period, her

services were not found to be satisfactory. The termination letter was challenged

by the respondent No.1 before this Court by way of Writ Petition No.1609/2006,

which was later on transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal and was

registered T.A.No.1441/2009.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the aforesaid T.A. was listed before the

Tribunal on 11.11.2009 without its knowledge. The Tribunal vide order dated

11.11.2009, set aside the order dated 5.12.2005 and directed the petitioner before

this Court to reinstate the respondent No.1 as Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 5.12.2005

with all benefits, within a period of 03 months. W.P.(C) No. 13475/2009 was filed

by the petitioner challenging the order passed by the Tribunal on 11.11.2009. It

was contended by the petitioner that when its Counsel appeared before the Tribunal

on 4.11.2009, he noted the next date of hearing as 8.12.2009 though in fact, the

matter had been adjourned to 11.11.2009.

While passing the order dated 11.11.2009 the Tribunal noted that the

performance of the respondent No.1 during the period of probation had been found

to be good. The Tribunal therefore was of the view that holding her performance

to be unsatisfactory, without indicating any reason and without producing any

material in this regard, the authority concerned had taken a contradictory stand. It

was observed by the Tribunal that extension of the probation and discharging the

applicant from service, despite the fact that unsatisfactory performance had not

been established from the record of the petitioner (respondent before the Tribunal),

was not tenable in law and was an illegality.

4. Vide order dated 22.7.2010, this court felt that the correct step to be taken by

the petitioner was to move an application under Rule 16 of Central Administrative

Tribunal (Procedure) Rules 1987 and while dismissing the Writ Petition as

withdrawn, directed that if the petitioner was to file an application under Rule 16 of

the aforesaid Rules, on the issue of limitation, the Tribunal would take note of the

fact that the aforesaid Writ Petition was filed on 26.11.2009 and was disposed of as

withdrawn on 22.7.2010.

MA No. 2023/2010 was thereafter filed by the petitioner which was

dismissed vide impugned order dated 29.9.2010. While passing the impugned

order dated 29.9.2010 the Tribunal observed that this was not a case where the

concept of deemed confirmation could be applicable. The Tribunal also upheld the

jurisdiction of the petitioner (respondent before the Tribunal) to terminate the

service of the petitioner before them (respondent No.1 herein) in the event of her

performance being found to be unsatisfactory. The Tribunal noted that there was a

gap of 09 months and 23 days between 4.7.2004 when the initial period of

probation expired and 28.4.2005 when the probation was extended. The Tribunal

took note of the fact that the ACRs of the petitioner before them (respondent No. 1

before this Court) for the years 2002-03, 2003-04 was „very good‟ whereas for the

third year her performance was rated as „good‟ by the Reporting Officer though the

Reviewing Officer assessed her performance to be „average‟ and also observed that

there was need on her part to improve her computer skills. The Tribunal was of the

view that the „average‟ assessment by the Reviewing Officer by the third year had

been viewed in isolation without considering the performance for the previous two

years in the right perspective and the observations made by the Reviewing

Authority for the third year was not preceded by any advisory or warning memo.

The Tribunal, therefore, found no ground to change the view taken vide its earlier

order dated 11.11.2009 and dismissed the application filed by the petitioner.

5. Clauses (b) & (c) of the appointment letter dated 4.7.2002 whereby the

respondent No.1 was appointed as Data Entry Operator with the petitioner, read as

under:

The post is temporary but likely to continue. You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of your appointment which may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority.

During the period of probation, you will be required to undergo such training as Board may prescribe. Failure to complete the

period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority will render you liable to be discharged from service at any time without any notice and assigning any reason. After the satisfactory completion of the period of probation the termination of the appointment will be after giving one month‟s notice on either side. The appointing authority, however, reserves the right of terminating your services forthwith or before the expiration of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to you of a sum equivalent of the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof.

It would thus be seen that the Appointment Letter did not fix any maximum

period upto which the probation of the respondent could be extended. The

petitioner was entitled to extend the probation from time to time, for such period as

was deemed appropriate by it. The Appointment Letter did not envisage deemed

confirmation, on failure of the petitioner to extend the period of probation, after the

initial period of 02 years was over.

6. In S. Sukhbans Singh v. The State of Punjab: AIR 1962 SC 1711, the

Constitution Bench of Supreme Court took the view that an employee appointed on

probation, does not, on expiry of the probation period, automatically become a

permanent member of the service to which he was appointed unless the Rules

governing his appointment provide for such a result. In State of Punjab v.

Dharam Singh: 1968 3 SCR 1, the Constitution Bench held that "where on the

completion of the specified period of probation an employee is allowed to continue

in the post without an order of confirmation, in the absence of anything to the

contrary in the original order of appointment or promotion or the Services Rules,

the initial period of probation is deemed to be extended by necessary implication".

In such a case, an express order of confirmation is necessary to give the employee a

substantive right to the post and from the mere fact that he is allowed to continue in

the post after the expiry of the specified period of probation, it is not possible to

hold that he should be deemed to have confirmed. In Pratap Singh v. Union

Territory of Chandigarh and Anr.: AIR 1980 SC 57, Supreme Court again held

that an employee cannot be deemed to be confirmed even at the end of the period

for which he was put on probation unless an order of confirmation is expressly

issued. In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of UP and Others: AIR 2000 SC

1706, the petitioner was on probation for two years. The regulations governing his

service conditions did not provide for any maximum period beyond which the

period of probation could not be extended. Supreme Court held that in absence of

such a prohibition in the Rules, the appellant did not acquire the status of a

permanent employee even on successful completion of two years‟ probation period.

Thus, in absence of any Rule to the contrary, an employee continues to be on

probation unless he/she is confirmed on the post to which he/she is appointed on

probation and there is no deemed confirmation merely on account of failure of the

employer to extend the period of probation. Rather, there is a presumption of

deemed extension of probation of the employee. The respondent No.1 before this

Court, therefore, continued to remain on probation, till the time her services were

terminated.

7. As regards the cases where the rules provide for a maximum period of

probation and no order of confirmation is passed and the probationer is allowed to

continue even after completion of the maximum period of probation, there have

been different lines of thinking in decisions of the Apex Court. The view taken by

the Apex Court in Dharam Singh (supra) and Om Prakash Maurya v. U.P.

Coop. Sugar Factories' Federation: (1986) Supp. SCC 95 was that if the Rules

prescribe a maximum period of probation and the employer permits the employee

to continue in service even after expiry of that period, it may be possible for the

Court to infer deemed confirmation of the employee. In Municipal Corporation

Raipur v. Ashok Kumar Misra: (1991) II LLJ 343 (SC), the relevant Service

Rules required, besides successful completion of probation, passing of a

departmental test as an essential pre-condition for confirmation. It was held that

mere expiry of the period of probation did not automatically have the effect of

deemed confirmation. In Chief General Manager, State Bank of India v. Bijoy

Kumar Mishra: (1997) 7 SCC 550 Supreme Court again held that deemed

confirmation can be inferred from the positive act of employer in permitting the

employee to continue to work on the post even after completion of the maximum

period of probation permitted under the service rules. In Kedar Nath Bahl v. The

State of Punjab And Others: AIR 1972 SC 873, Supreme Court was of the view

that unless the terms of appointment clearly indicate that the confirmation would

automatically follow at the end of the specified period, or there is a specific Rule to

that effect, the expiration of the probation period does not necessarily lead to

confirmation and at the end of the period of probation, an order confirming the

officer is required to be passed. Somewhat similar view was taken in Mohd.

Salman v. Committee of Management And Others: 2011 (10) Scale 251. These

somewhat different lines of thought were noticed by Supreme Court in Khazia

Mohammed Muzammil v. The State of Karnataka: (2010) 8 SCC 155 and the

legal proposition in the matter was enunciated as follows:

"On a clear analysis of the above enunciated law, particularly, the Seven Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Samsher Singh (supra) and three Judge Bench judgments, which are certainly the larger Benches and are binding on us, the Courts have taken the view with reference to the facts and relevant Rules involved in those cases that the principle of 'automatic' or 'deemed confirmation' would not be attracted. The pith and substance of the stated principles of law is that it will be the facts and the Rules, which will have to be examined by the Courts as a condition precedent to the application of the dictum stated in any of the line of the cases afore noticed.

There can be cases where the Rules require a definite act on the part of the employer before officer on probation can be confirmed. In other words, there may a Rule or Regulation requiring the competent authority to examine the suitability of the probationer and then upon recording

its satisfaction issue an order of confirmation. Where the Rules are of this nature the question of automatic confirmation would not even arise. Of course, every authority is expected to act properly and expeditiously. It cannot and ought not to keep issuance of such order in abeyance without any reason or justification. While there could be some other cases where the Rules do not contemplate issuance of such a specific order in writing but merely require that there will not be any automatic confirmation or some acts, other than issuance of specific orders, are required to be performed by the parties, even in those cases it is difficult to attract the application of this doctrine.

However, there will be cases where not only such specific Rules, as noticed above, are absent but the Rules specifically prohibit extension of the period of probation or even specifically provide that upon expiry of that period he shall attain the status of a temporary or a confirmed employee. In such cases, again, two situations would rise: one, that he would attain the status of an employee being eligible for confirmation and second, that actually he will attain the status of a confirmed employee. The Courts have repeatedly held that it may not be possible to prescribe a straight jacket formula of universal implementation for all cases involving such questions. It will always depend upon the facts of a case and the relevant Rules applicable to that service."

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon an order dated

27.10.2005 of Division Bench of this Court rendered in LPA No. 1902/2005 Dr.

Archana Dayal v. Union of India & Others wherein the appellant was on

probation. Her services were terminated on the ground her performance being

unsatisfactory. The termination was challenged in a Writ Petition which was

dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court. Being aggrieved by the order,

the appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal impugning the order passed by the

learned Single Judge. It was contended on behalf of the appellant that she having

successfully completed her initial period of probation she was deemed to have

confirmed in the post to which she was appointed and therefore no order

terminating her services could have been passed. The contention was rejected after

noting that the appointment letter clearly stipulated that on appointment the

appellant would in probation for a period of 02 years from the date of appointment

which could be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. Clause (c) of

the Appointment Letter in that case also stipulated that failure of the appellant to

complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of the competent authority

would render her liable to be discharged from service at any time, without any

notice and assigning any reason. Thus, the appointment letter issued to the

appellant in the aforesaid case was identical to the appointment letter issued to the

respondent before this Court. The Division Bench upheld the view taken by the

learned Single Judge that no order having been passed by the respondents

confirming the services of the appellant, she continued to be on probation.

8. As regards termination of the services of the respondent No.1, it is settled

proposition of law that an order terminating the services of a probationer on the

ground of unsuitability cannot be termed as stigmatic or punitive though in

appropriate cases, it is open to the Court to lift the veil in order to ascertain as to

what was the real motive and foundation for terminating the services of the

employee.

9. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.Union of India: AIR 1958 SC 36, Supreme

Court inter alia held as under:

It is true that the misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may be the motive or the inducing factor which influences the Government to take action under the terms of the contract of employment or the specific service rule, nevertheless, if a right exists, under the contract or the rules, to terminate the service the motive operating on the mind of the Government is, as Chagla C.J. has said in Shrinivas Ganesh v. Union of India (supra), wholly irrelevant. In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil consequences and so Art. 311 is not attracted. But even if the Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a punishment and the requirements of Art. 311 must be complied with.

In Benjamin (AG) v. Union of India: (1967) I LLJ 718 (SC) explaining its

decision in Parshotam Lal Dhingra case (Supra) supreme Court followed the

following two tests mentioned in Dhingra‟s case:

(1) Whether the temporary government servant had a right to the post or the rank, or (2) Whether he has been visited with evil consequences.

In this case, a notice had been sent to the employee to show-cause why

disciplinary action be not taken against him. This was followed by appointment of

an Inquiry Officer, but, before the inquiry could be completed the services of the

employee were terminated. The Constitution Bench upheld the order of

termination and drew a distinction between preliminary inquiry and a departmental

inquiry holding that a preliminary inquiry has also to satisfy the Government

whether there were no reasons to dispense with the services of the temporary

employee and such an inquiry should not be mistaken for a departmental inquiry

which is held to decide what punitive action should be taken against the employee

concerned.

In H.F. Sangati v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka: (2001) 3

SCC 117, a Munsif appointed as a probationer was discharged from service. The

order of termination mentioned that he was "unsuitbale" to hold the post of Munsif.

Supreme Court held that the order did not cast any stigma on the employee and was

not punitive.

In Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab: (1974) 2 SCC 831 Supreme Court

was of the view that when a full scale inquiry is held against the probationer, or a

temporary appointer and he is found guilty, an order terminating his services for

this reason was punitive and bad in law. The court was of the view that in such

cases, the Court could look behind the form of the order, to find out whether the

termination was, in substance, punitive or not. The legal position in this regard was

enunciated by the Court as under:

Before a probationer is confirmed the authority concerned is under an obligation to consider whether the work of the probationer is satisfactory or whether he is suitable for the post. In the absence of any Rules governing a probationer in this respect the authority may come to the conclusion that on account of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or other object not involving moral turpitude the probationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must be discharged. No punishment is involved, in this. The authority may in some cases be of the view that the conduct of the probationer may result in dismissal or removal on an inquiry. But in those cases the authority may not hold an inquiry and may simply discharge the probationer with a view to giving him a chance to make good in other walks of life without a stigma at the time of termination of probation. If, on the other hand, the probationer is faced with an enquiry on charges of misconduct or inefficiency or corruption, and if his services are terminated without following the provisions of Article 311(2) he can claim protection.

In State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla: (1991) 1 SCC 691, the

termination of the employee was preceded by an inquiry. It was held that such an

inquiry did not convert the order of termination into one of punishment.

10. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical

Sciences: (2002) 1 SSC 520, Supreme Court was of the view that when the

appointment of a probationer is terminated, it would generally mean that he is unfit

for the job to which he was appointed. Observing that in a strict sense stigma is

implicit in the termination, a simple termination is not stigmatic, the Court was of

the view that a simple termination is not stigmatic and that in order to amount to a

stigma the order must be couched in a language which imputes something over and

above mere unsuitability for the job. Supreme Court held that one of the judicially

evolved tests to determine, whether in substance an order for termination is

punitive, is to see whether prior to the termination there was full scale formal

inquiry into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct, which culminated

in a finding of guilt. It was further observed that even where all the three factors

referred to above were present, the termination had been held to be not punitive.

11. The legal proposition thus can be summarized as under:

Though, inefficiency, negligence or misconduct of the employee may have

been the factors which induced the employer to terminate the services of a

temporary employee or a probationer, that by itself does not render the order of

termination punitive. However, the Courts can, in appropriate cases, lift the veil of

an innocuously-worded order to look at the real face of the order and to find out

whether it is actually as innocent as is worded or not. An order of termination does

not become punitive merely because of an inquiry having preceded the termination,

so long as the real job or purpose of the inquiry was to assess the general

unsuitability of the employee. An order terminating the services under the rules of

employment does not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution of

India. If, however, the order terminating the services visits the public servant with

penal consequences or casts aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be

held to be one by way of punishment even if the employee or a probationer or a

temporary servant at that time. The Court can in appropriate cases examine the

circumstances preceding or attending the order of termination and the form of the

order would not be conclusive of its true nature, the determinative factor being the

foundation and not the form of the order. If an inquiry is held to determine the

suitability of a probationer for his continued retention in service or confirmation,

the order passed on the basis of such an inquiry would not be punitive in nature. If,

however, inquiry is held on allegation of misconduct, the order terminating the

services is passed on such an inquiry, the order would be punitive being founded on

misconduct. In such a case, it cannot be said that the misconduct was merely a

motive and not the foundation for terminating the services of the employee.

12. In the case before this Court, the order dated 5.12.2005 to the extent it is

relevant reads as under:

As per the terms of your appointment, you were on probation initially for a period of two years and extendable as per rules.

During your probation period, which had been extended in the interim and continues till date, your services have not been found to be satisfactory.

It would thus be seen that on the face of it, the letter whereby the services of

the respondent No.1 were terminated, does not appear to be stigmatic and appears

to be an order for discharge on account of the performance of the respondent No.1

having not been found to be satisfactory. Admittedly, no inquiry was held against

the respondent No.1 before terminating her services. Therefore, this is not a case

where the inquiry was held against the employee, he/she was found to be guilty and

the employer instead of proceeding departmentally chose to terminate the services

of the employee and therefore the order of termination carried a stigma attached to

it. Even otherwise, there is no material placed before us to indicate that the order

was punitive in nature or actuated by any mala fide consideration. There is no

material on record to suggest that the order terminating the services of the

respondent No.1 was founded on any charges and misconduct against her.

Therefore, it cannot be said that the order whereby the services of the respondent

No.1 were terminated, entailed any evil consequences for the respondent No.1 or

was otherwise punitive in nature.

It is true that the ACR of the respondent No.1 for the years 2002-03 and

2003-04 were found to be „ very good‟ but, her ACR for the year 2004-05 was

available to the petitioner before it decided to terminate the services of the

respondent No.1. The Reviewing Officer whose assessment supersedes that of the

Reporting Officer had graded the performance of the respondent No.1 as „average‟

and was of the view that she required to improve her computer skills and her

overall performance needed to be watched before her services were confirmed.

These grounds were recorded on 28.4.2005. As noted earlier, there is no allegation

of mala fide against the Reviewing Officer. The order terminating the services of

the respondent No. 1 came to be passed after more than 07 months of the aforesaid

remarks being recorded by the Reviewing Officer. This indicates that the

performance of the respondent No.1 was watched for more than 6 months after

assessment for the year 2004-05. Therefore, it cannot be disputed that the

performance of the respondent No.1 was duly considered by the Competent

Authority. Admittedly, the period of probation was extended for 06 months vide

letter dated 18.5.2005. By that time, the respondent had completed about 02 years

and 10 months of service. Extension of the period of probation by itself was an

indicator to her that her performance was not upto mark and that is why she had not

been confirmed to the post to which she was initially appointed on probation. It is

therefore difficult to say that the respondent No.1 was taken by surprise and she

came to know only on receipt of the aforesaid order that she needed to improve her

performance.

13. The learned Counsel for the respondent No.1, during the course of

arguments relied upon para IX of the Office Memorandum dated 15.4.1959 issued

by Government of India, Ministry of Home Affairs whereby recommendations of

the Government with respect to appointments of probation were forwarded for

adoption in respect of services controlled by various Ministries. The aforesaid

clause stipulated that the decision whether to confirm an employee or extend his

probation should be taken within 6-8 weeks after expiry of the initial probationary

period and should be communicated to the employee along with the reasons

annexed to explanation. It further stipulated that a probationer who was not

making satisfactory progress or who showed himself to be inadequate for the

service should be informed of his shortcomings well before the expiry of the

original probationary period so that he could make special efforts at self-

improvement. The contention was that no such advice or information was given to

the respondent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner however categorically

stated that the aforesaid Office Memorandum was not adopted by the petitioner,

which is an autonomous organization registered under the Societies Registration

Act and which follows its own rules and regulations in respect of all service,

administrative, financial and academic matters. A letter dated 30.1.2012 issued by

the concerned Deputy Director was also produced before us wherein it has been

stated that the contents of the aforesaid Office Memorandum are not applicable to

the employees of National Board of Examinations and that the employees of the

petitioner are not government servants. Therefore, the petitioner was not required

to follow the aforesaid Office Memorandum before terminating the services of the

respondent. The failure of the employer to serve such a note of caution on the

employee, in our view, does not by itself render the termination of the services of a

probationer illegal. In any case, the order extending the period of probation of the

petitioner, by itself was a sort of caution to the respondent No.1 that her

performance was not upto the mark and that is why her period of probation was

being extended.

14. The learned Counsel for the respondent has placed reliance upon the

decision of this Court in LPA No. 15/2009 Dr. Vishakha Kapoor v. National

Board of Examination & Another decided on 3.3.2009. In that case, the appellant

before this Court, who had become pregnant after 05 years of her marriage suffered

miscarriage and was advised to take bed-rest. She became pregnant once again

while on leave and was advised to remain on bed-rest in view of high risk

pregnancy induced hypertension and gestational diabetes. She repeatedly applied

for leave, accompanied by medical certificates. The respondent did not ask her to

take second opinion or re-confirmation from another doctor. After she had given

birth to a child on 16.1.2008 her services were terminated vide letter dated

8.2.2008. Termination letter inter alia read as under:

You had attended the office from 9th October, 2006 upto 3rd May, 2007. You had to undergo an abortion and had availed abortion leave of 45 days from 4th May, 2007 till 17th June, 2007. The said leave was granted to you in accordance with Rule 43(3) of CCS(Leave) Rules, 1972. You were expected to join the office on 18th May, 2007. During this period of rest, you became pregnant and have neglected/failed to attend the office till date.

By the office letter dated 6th July, 2007 you were informed about your leave status and in no uncertain terms that your leave was to end on 29th July, 2007. It would be pertinent to mention here that 15 days earned leave was granted and credited to your account in advance for services to be rendered by you for the period 1.7.2007 to 31.12.2007. Since you had failed to resume your duties till date, the earned leave for the period 1.7.2007 to 31.12.2007 so credited in anticipation stands forfeited/cancelled in accordance with CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972.

However, since you had submitted applications for further extension of leave without certification by "Authorized Medical Attendant" as required in accordance with CS(Medical Attendnace) Rules, 1944 and as stipulated for Gazetted Government servants, you were granted Extra Ordinary Leave (EOL) for a period of 62 days w.e.f. 30th July, 2007 upto 3rd October, 2007. Despite lapse of all leaves available to you, you have failed to resume your duties till date.

By the office letters dated 7th January, 2008 and 14th January, 2008, you were requested to revert back immediately. However, you have filed an application dated 17th January, 2008 and have sought further

maternity leave for 135 days from 26th January, 2008 upto 8th June, 2008.

x x x

Consequently, you have continued to be away from duties illegally after expiry of your leave period.

In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances your probationary services are discharged with immediate effect.

The Court was of the view that termination of services showed complete

insensitivity to basic human rights and values and violated Articles 14 and 21 of

the Constitution of India. The Court also found the termination per se stigmatic. It

was also held that the termination was also bad in law in view of the provisions of

Maternity Benefits Act, 1961 which provided that where a human absents herself

from work in accordance with provisions of that Act it shall be unlawful for the

employer to discharge or dismiss her on account of such an absence. It was noted

that she was entitled to leave upto 12 weeks but the termination order had ignored

this and treated this period as unauthorized leave and therefore was contrary to law.

The Court was also of the view that notice of discharge could not have been issued

to the petitioner during the period of statutory leave/absence she being entitled to at

least 06 weeks leave from the date on which her child was born whereas the

respondent had discharged her within 03 weeks of the birth of the child. The facts

and circumstances of the case relied upon by the learned Counsel for the

respondent No.1 being altogether different, this judgment would not apply in the

case before this Court.

15. For the reasons given in the preceding paragraphs, we are of the view that

impugned order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal cannot be sustained.

We accordingly, allow the Writ Petition and set aside the impugned orders dated

11.11.2009 and 29.09.2010 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal in TA

No. 1441/2009 and MA No. 2023/2010 in TA No. 1441/2009. In the facts and

circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs.

V.K.JAIN, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J

FEBRUARY 10, 2012 'sn'/vn