S.K. Jain vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 3227 Del

$~
*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+                         W.P.(C) 6901/2010
%                                                               26.07.2013

      S.K. JAIN                                        ..... Petitioner
                          Through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate

                          versus

      GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS.                     .... Respondents

Through: Mr. Amit Bansal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

Mr. Anurag Mathur, Advocate for respondent No.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VALMIKI J. MEHTA

To be referred to the Reporter or not?

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J (ORAL)

1. By this writ petition one Sh. S.K. Jain, who was appointed by the

respondent No. 4/College to the post of Administrative Officer on probation

basis, impugns the order dated 4.10.2010 terminating his services during the

period of probation.

2. The law with respect to services of termination of a probationer is

now well settled and it has been held by the Supreme Court that a

probationer can always be terminated during the probationary period without

complying with the principles of natural justice. It has also been held that

even if the orders of termination of probation states that the services are 'not

satisfactory' then the order of the termination will not for that reason be

called stigmatic in nature. The relevant observations of the Supreme Court

are contained in paras 44 and 45 of the judgment in the case of Muir Mills

Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. Vs. Swayam Prakash Srivastava & Anr. (2007) 1

SCC 491 and which paras read as under:

"44. Also in the case of Registrar, High Court of Gujarat and Anr. v. C.G. Sharma it was observed that an employee who is on probation can be terminated from services due to unsatisfactory work.

45. This Court's decision in the case of P.N. Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences can be referred to in this context, where it was held by this Court that, the services of a probationer can be terminated at any time before confirmation, provided that such termination is not stigmatic. This Court in State of Madhya Pradesh v. Virendera Kumar Chourasiya also has held that in the event of a non-stigmatic termination of the services of a probationer, principles of audi alteram partem are not applicable."

3. In the present case, the facts which emerge are that though the

petitioner was recommended for confirmation of appointment by the

Principal of the College, however, the governing body of the college, and

which is admittedly the final body which takes decision on continuing of

probation or confirmation or termination, in fact passed a resolution firstly

giving one extension of probation period but subsequently passed a

resolution not confirming the service i.e terminating the services of the

petitioner during the period of probation. The letter informing the petitioner

of terminating his services dated 4.10.2010 reads as under :

      "CBS/PO/CONF./2010-11                  OCTOBER 4, 2010

      Mr. S.K. Jain
      Administrative Officer
      Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies
      University of Delhi
      Delhi.

      Dear Mr. Jain,

You were appointed as Administrative Officer with the Shaheed Sukhdev College of Business Studies vide letter dt. 19/05/2009. The appointment letter provided for a probation period of one year that expired on 19/05/2010. In view of the unsatisfactory performance, your period of probation was extended by a further six months to expire on 19/11/2010. However, your performance continues to be unsatisfactory even during the extension of the probationary period. Therefore, the Governing Body in its emergency meeting on 04/10/2010 has decided to terminate your services with immediate effect.

In compliance thereof your services are hereby terminated with immediate effect and your are directed to hand over charge to Shri S.K. Jairath, Section Officer (Accounts).

Yours faithfully,

Sd/-

(Poonam Verma)"

4. A reference to the aforesaid letter shows that services of the petitioner

were unsatisfactory. As per the ratio laid down in the case of Muir Mills

Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. (supra) merely mentioning of services as

unsatisfactory will not make the order stigmatic.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner did try to passionately argue that it

is the Principal who judges the performance of the probationer/petitioner,

and since the Principal had recommended the confirmation of the petitioner,

the governing body was bound to accept the recommendation of the

Principal. I am unable to agree with this argument because neither any law

nor any provision or statute of the University of Delhi or any rule of the

respondent No. 4/College states that decision of the governing body is not

final and it is the decision of the Principal which is final. Surely, a body will

be governed by its Governing Council and Executive Council, and which is

the final authority to decide the issues with respect to it/college. The

relevant resolution of the governing body granting extension of probation

period qua the petitioner is dated 17.05.2010 and the resolution of the

governing body whereby petitioner's services as a probationer has been

decided to be terminated is dated 04.10.2010. Learned counsel for the

petitioner sought to contend that Chairman is nobody to disapprove/override

the recommendation of the Principal of the College on his own to either

grant extension or to turn down the confirmation of an employee and which

the Chairman has illegally done against the opinion of the Principal. This

argument may appear to have some substance but this argument ignores the

most important fact that we have to see the decision of the body which has

the power either to give extension or to decide that the probationer should

not be confirmed. Admittedly, this power vests in the governing body of the

respondent No. 4, and which has decided firstly for extension of probation

period and thereafter decided not to confirm the petitioner/probationer to the

job of Administrative Officer.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner also argues that having decided to

extend the probationary period of the petitioner, then thereafter without

giving reason and opportunity to the petitioner to improve, the probationary

officer's services could not be terminated. I cannot agree with this argument

because the Supreme Court has stated in the case of Muir Mills Unit of

NTC (U.P.) Ltd. (supra), and the relevant paras of this judgment are

reproduced above, that for termination of the services of a probationer

principles of natural justice are not to be followed. Therefore, there is no

requirement of calling upon a probationer to improve by informing him that

services are not satisfactory

7. In view of the above, the writ petition is, therefore, dismissed, leaving

the parties to bear their own costs.

VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J JULY 26, 2013 godara