Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sushil Kumar Srivastava, was appointed as Airport Director of Shirdi Airport by the Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited (MADC) on 28th July 2021, on probation for one year. He joined on 2nd August 2021. On 4th February 2022, he was served a show cause notice based on a complaint dated 3rd February 2022 from Ms. Deepali Bhosale, alleging serious misconduct. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 7th February 2022, denying the allegations and stating that the complaint was motivated because he had pointed out deficiencies in the complainant's counters. Despite the allegations, the petitioner's probation was extended four times for two months each, from 1st August 2022 to 31st March 2023. After 31st March 2023, no order of confirmation or termination was issued, and the petitioner continued in service. On 2nd June 2023, the petitioner was terminated by an order that detailed various allegations of misconduct and unsatisfactory work. The petitioner challenged the termination, arguing that he was deemed confirmed after 31st March 2023 and that the termination order was stigmatic, requiring a disciplinary inquiry. The court held that the appointment order did not provide for extension of probation, but the employer extended it four times. After the extended probation ended on 31st March 2023, the employer did not issue any order, and the petitioner continued in service, leading to deemed confirmation. The termination order was stigmatic as it contained allegations of misconduct and unsatisfactory work, and thus could not be passed without a disciplinary inquiry. The court quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation - Deemed Confirmation - Appointment Order - Where the appointment order does not provide for extension of probation, the employer cannot extend probation beyond the initial period; however, if extended, upon expiry of the extended period without any order of confirmation or termination, the employee is deemed confirmed. (Paras 13-16) B) Service Law - Stigmatic Termination - Disciplinary Inquiry - Termination order based on allegations of misconduct and unsatisfactory work is stigmatic and cannot be passed without a proper disciplinary inquiry. (Paras 17-20) C) Service Law - Termination During Probation - Employer's Power - Clause 4 of the appointment order permits termination without notice if work is unsatisfactory, but such termination must be innocuous and not based on allegations of misconduct. (Paras 14-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination order dated 2nd June 2023 was stigmatic and required a disciplinary inquiry, and whether the petitioner was deemed confirmed in service after expiry of the extended probation period on 31st March 2023.
Final Decision
The court quashed the termination order dated 2nd June 2023 and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, within four weeks.
Law Points
- Probation extension requires express power in appointment order
- Deemed confirmation after expiry of probation period
- Stigmatic termination requires disciplinary inquiry
- Employer cannot terminate on grounds of misconduct without inquiry
