Case Note & Summary
The appeal arose from a judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 5 November 1969 dismissing a writ petition challenging the termination of a probationer. The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission as a direct recruit and appointed as Probationary Deputy Superintendent of Police on 26 May 1965 with a two-year probation period. The probation was extended by one year on 1 July 1967. An order terminated the appellant's services on 20 May 1968, but this was revoked on 20 July 1968 and probation was extended by six months from 20 May 1968. The period from 20 May 1968 to 2 August 1968 was treated as leave and excluded from probation. By order dated 30 January 1969, the President of India dispensed with the appellant's services on the expiry of the extended probation period under Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, having considered him unfit for appointment to the State Police Service. The appellant contended before the High Court and before the Supreme Court that by reason of expiry of three years he stood confirmed on 19/20 November 1968, before the termination order, and that the termination order was punitive and required an opportunity to show cause under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952. The respondent State argued that Rule 8 of the Punjab Police Service Rules deals with termination of probation on fitness grounds, while Rule 11 refers to disciplinary penalties under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, and that unfitness for appointment at confirmation is not punishment. The Supreme Court held that the appellant could not be confirmed until the extended probation period expired, because the object of extension was to assess fitness, and the leave period had been excluded. The termination order was therefore passed during probation and not after confirmation. The Court further held that termination on account of unfitness for appointment is not based on any turpitude like misconduct or inefficiency and does not amount to punishment. The words 'unfit to be appointed' are not a stigma; if held otherwise, authorities would be deprived of the power to judge fitness for work or suitability to a post at the time of confirmation. Fitness for the job is one of the most important reasons for confirmation. Termination for inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or other defect not involving moral turpitude is not discharge by punishment. Rule 9 was therefore not attracted. The appeal was dismissed and parties were directed to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Probation and Confirmation - Extended Probation Period - Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, Rule 8(b) - The appellant could not be confirmed before the extended period of probation expired because the object of extending probation is to assess fitness; the leave period from 20-5-68 to 2-8-68 was excluded from probation; therefore the appellant did not stand confirmed on 19/20 November 1968 - Held that the termination order was passed during probation and not after confirmation. B) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Stigma and Punishment - Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952, Rule 9 - Termination on the ground of unfitness for appointment at the time of confirmation is not punishment and does not attract Rule 9 unless it is based on any turpitude like misconduct or inefficiency; the words 'unfit to be appointed' do not constitute a stigma - Held that Rule 9 was not attracted and the termination order was valid. C) Service Law - Distinction Between Probation Rules and Penalty Rules - Punjab Police Service Rules, 1959, Rule 8 and Rule 11 - Rule 8 deals with termination of probation on fitness grounds, while Rule 11 refers to discipline, penalties and appeals under the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules; termination for inadequacy for the job or for temperamental or other defect not involving moral turpitude is not discharge by punishment - Held that no opportunity to show cause was required before termination for unfitness.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order terminating the service of a probationer on the ground of unfitness for appointment violates Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1952; whether the appellant stood confirmed on 19/20 November 1968 before the termination order was passed on 30 January 1969
Final Decision
Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court held that the probationer was not confirmed before the expiry of the extended probation period and that the termination order on the ground of unfitness for appointment did not amount to punishment or carry stigma, therefore Rule 9 was not attracted. Parties directed to bear their own costs.
Law Points
- A probationer cannot be confirmed before expiration of extended probation period
- termination for unfitness to be appointed during probation does not amount to punishment unless based on specific fault or unsatisfactory record implying unsuitability
- 'unfit to be appointed' is not a stigma
- fitness for job is an essential criterion for confirmation
- Rule 8(b) of Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 and Rule 9 of Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1952 operate in different fields
