Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India dealt with an appeal arising from an order of the Delhi High Court dated April 30, 1991 in Writ Petition No. 3695 of 1990. The appellant, K.V. Krishnamani, was initially appointed on ad hoc basis on March 3, 1987, and subsequently placed on probation with a view to regularizing his services. During probation, his services were found unsatisfactory, and by proceedings dated December 1, 1989, they were terminated. The appellant filed a writ petition in November 1990 challenging the termination, which the Delhi High Court dismissed. Thereafter, the appellant approached the Supreme Court by special leave. The central legal question was whether the termination of the appellant during probation, based on unsatisfactory service, required a disciplinary inquiry on the ground that the reasons stated in the counter affidavit constituted the foundation for dismissal for misconduct. The appellant contended that the averments in the counter affidavit constituted a foundation for dismissal for misconduct and, therefore, an enquiry was required. On the other hand, the respondent argued that during probation the appellant did not acquire any right to the post. Only if he had been found suitable and regularized would he have acquired a right to continue in the post. The respondent submitted that during probation, it was found that his services were not satisfactory, and reasons were given in support thereof, which constituted motive and not foundation for termination. The Supreme Court found force in the respondent's contention. The respondent had explained that the driving of the staff car was not satisfactory and that therefore the services of the appellant were terminated during probation. The Court reiterated that the very object of probation is to test suitability, and if the appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate the services of the employee. Under these circumstances, the Court held that the reasons mentioned constituted motive and not foundation for termination of service. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the High Court had not committed any error of law. The appeal was dismissed with no order as to costs. The decision primarily favored the respondent, Lalit Kala Academy, and affirmed the principle that termination of a probationer for unsatisfactory service, without a full departmental inquiry, is valid when the reasons are merely motive and not foundation of misconduct.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Unsatisfactory performance during probation constitutes motive, not foundation, and does not require a disciplinary inquiry - No specific statute cited - The appellant was appointed on ad hoc basis and later placed on probation; his services were terminated during probation after his driving of the staff car was found unsatisfactory. The appellant contended that the reasons constituted foundation for misconduct requiring an inquiry. The Supreme Court held that the reasons were motive, not foundation, and that a probationer has no right to the post until regularization; therefore, termination was valid and the High Court did not err. Held that the appeal should be dismissed.
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of a probationer's services based on unsatisfactory performance requires a disciplinary inquiry when the reasons stated constitute foundation for misconduct or merely motive for termination
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the reasons for termination constituted motive and not foundation for termination of service, and therefore no disciplinary inquiry was required. The High Court had not committed any error of law. No costs.
Law Points
- A probationer has no right to the post until regularization
- Unsatisfactory performance during probation constitutes motive not foundation for termination
- Termination during probation based on unsatisfactory service does not require a disciplinary inquiry
