Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court dismissed a special leave petition arising from an order of the Allahabad High Court which had dismissed a writ petition challenging the termination of a probationer. The petitioner was appointed on January 15, 1990, in the pay-scale of Rs.550-1100 with allowances, total remuneration Rs.1991.40, and was placed on probation for 12 months as per clause (2) of the appointment letter. The clause stated that during probation, services could be terminated without assigning any reason. On January 16, 1991, the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that his work performance during probation was found unsatisfactory. The petitioner challenged the termination before the Allahabad High Court, contending that the order was stigmatic and required an enquiry. The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the respondents had completely lost confidence in the petitioner and that he was unsuitable for the job, hence no enquiry was required. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner's senior counsel argued that the finding of unsatisfactory performance amounted to a stigma and that termination without enquiry and opportunity violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the rules thereunder. The Supreme Court rejected this contention. It held that the order may be a motive and not a foundation as a ground for dismissal. During the period of probation, authorities are entitled to assess suitability to remain in service and may record a finding of unsatisfactory performance of work and duties. If they record such a finding, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms of the letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry, and that does not amount to any stigma. The Court noted that if the record did not support such a conclusion, a different complexion would arise, but in this case the respondents had recorded that the petitioner was regularly absent on one ground or the other. Therefore, the termination was valid and no illegality was found in the action taken by the respondents. The special leave petition was accordingly dismissed.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation and Termination - Stigma and Natural Justice - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 311(2) - The petitioner, a probationer, was terminated for unsatisfactory work performance during probation without an enquiry. The Supreme Court held that assessment of suitability during probation and recording of unsatisfactory performance does not amount to a stigma; the termination order was based on the appointment letter clause allowing termination without assigning reasons. The order's motive was not the foundation, and no enquiry was required. Held that termination simpliciter of a probationer for unsatisfactory performance does not violate Article 311(2) or principles of natural justice.
Issue of Consideration
Whether termination of a probationer on the ground of unsatisfactory work performance during probation, without conducting an enquiry, amounts to a stigma and violates Article 311(2) of the Constitution and principles of natural justice?
Final Decision
The special leave petition is dismissed. The Supreme Court held that termination of petitioner's service during probation for unsatisfactory performance was not stigmatic and did not require an enquiry; it was in accordance with the appointment letter clause. No illegality found.
Law Points
- Termination of probationer for unsatisfactory performance during probation is termination simpliciter and not stigmatic
- order may be a motive and not a foundation
- no enquiry required under appointment letter clause
- Article 311(2) of Constitution not attracted
