Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shailesh Sadanand Raut, applied for the post of Works Assistant in the Public Works Department (PWD) of the State of Goa pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2014. He was successful in the written examination and was selected. After completing procedural formalities, he was appointed by order dated 30.8.2017 on probation for a period of two years. The appointment order contained a condition that the appointment was subject to satisfactory completion of the probation period. However, by order dated 28.9.2018, the respondents terminated the petitioner's services without any prior notice or opportunity of hearing. The petitioner challenged this termination by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The court heard the matter and framed the issue of whether the termination of a probationer without any opportunity of hearing is valid. The petitioner argued that the termination was arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice, as he was not given any chance to explain his performance. The respondents contended that the petitioner was a probationer and his services could be terminated without any inquiry as per the terms of appointment. The court analyzed the law regarding termination of probationers and held that even a probationer is entitled to be heard if the termination is based on unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. The court observed that the condition in the appointment order regarding satisfactory completion of probation period must be read as requiring the employer to give the employee a reasonable opportunity to show cause before termination. The court distinguished between termination simpliciter and termination for cause, and held that in this case, the termination was based on the employer's assessment of unsatisfactory performance, which required an opportunity of hearing. The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages. The court also directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before any further decision regarding his probation.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Natural Justice - The petitioner, appointed as Works Assistant on probation, was terminated without any opportunity of hearing. The court held that even a probationer is entitled to be heard before termination if the termination is based on unsatisfactory performance or misconduct. The condition in the appointment order regarding satisfactory completion of probation period must be read as requiring reasonable opportunity before termination. (Paras 4-10) B) Service Law - Probation - Condition of Satisfactory Completion - The appointment order contained a condition that the appointment was subject to satisfactory completion of probation period. The court interpreted this condition to mean that the employer must give the employee a reasonable opportunity to show cause before terminating the probation, as the condition implies a right to be heard. (Paras 7-9) C) Service Law - Termination - Stigmatic Termination - The termination order did not expressly state any stigma, but the court found that the termination was based on the employer's assessment of unsatisfactory performance, which required an opportunity of hearing. The court distinguished between termination simpliciter and termination for cause, holding that even if no stigma is attached, if the termination is for unsatisfactory performance, natural justice demands a hearing. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner, a probationary Works Assistant, without any opportunity of hearing, is valid in law, particularly when the appointment order stipulated that the appointment was subject to satisfactory completion of probation period.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order dated 28.9.2018, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and consequential benefits, but without back wages. The court further directed that the petitioner be given an opportunity of hearing before any further decision regarding his probation.
Law Points
- Termination of probationer without inquiry is permissible only if no stigma is attached and no adverse consequences are imposed
- but if the termination is based on unsatisfactory performance
- the employee must be given an opportunity to show cause before termination
- Natural justice requires that even a probationer be heard before termination if the termination is for unsatisfactory performance or misconduct
- The condition in appointment order regarding satisfactory completion of probation period must be read as requiring reasonable opportunity before termination
