Bombay High Court Hears Employer's Challenge to Reinstatement of Terminated Probationer. Appellate Authority Had Set Aside Termination on Grounds of Deemed Confirmation and Stigma Without Enquiry under Service Rules.

Employment dispute regarding termination of probationer's services by the Agricultural Produce Market Committee, Nagpur.

Petitioners (employer) seek to set aside the appellate order of the Divisional Joint Registrar dated 19 April 2005, which allowed the employee's appeal and directed reinstatement with consequential benefits.

The Committee terminated the probationer's services on grounds of unsatisfactory performance; the employee appealed and succeeded; the employer now challenges the appellate order as erroneous.

Appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 11/2004) allowed by Divisional Joint Registrar on 19-04-2005, setting aside the termination order dated 23-09-2004 and directing reinstatement with all consequential benefits. An earlier appeal (Misc. Appeal No. 9/2004) was rejected as premature.

Whether the termination of a probationer's services was valid when probation period exceeded the maximum prescribed under Rule 9 of the Service Rules? Whether Rule 9 of the Service Rules is directory or mandatory, and whether continuation beyond the maximum probation period results in deemed confirmation? Whether the termination order was stigmatic and required a disciplinary enquiry under the principles of natural justice? Whether the Divisional Joint Registrar exceeded jurisdiction in allowing the appeal and setting aside the termination?

Petitioners argued that Rule 9 is directory, not mandatory, and probation can continue beyond twelve months; no deemed confirmation occurred because no satisfaction of services was recorded; the termination order merely recorded unsuitability and was not punitive or stigmatic; no enquiry was necessary; the certificate relied upon by the employee was dubious and had no evidentiary value; allegations of malafides were unsubstantiated; the appellate authority erred in law and facts. Respondent no.1 (employee) argued before the Registrar that Rule 9 limits probation to a maximum of twelve months and after that period, in absence of adverse remarks, he stood confirmed; the termination was stigmatic and issued without any disciplinary enquiry; the action was tainted by malafides of a Director; he had a certificate of appreciation contradicting the claim of unsatisfactory work; termination violated principles of natural justice and Rule 103.

The Committee reviewed the performance of the respondent no.1, and recorded that the services of the respondent no.1 were not rendered satisfactorily and that it was, therefore, resolved in the meeting of Committee held on 26th July, 2004 not to extend the period of probation, and to terminate his services as probationer. Rule 9 of the Services Rules vests the power in the Committee to dispense with the services of a probationer, if the work and conduct of the employee during the period of probation is not satisfactory. The Divisional Joint Registrar heard and decided the appeal of the respondent no.1 herein by his Order dated 19th April, 2005, allowed the appeal and set aside the order of termination, directing reinstatement along with all consequential benefits.

Respondent no.1 appointed as Executive Engineer on probation on 16-06-2003; probation extended thrice until 02-06-2004; termination order passed on 23-09-2004; respondent no.1 initially filed Misc. Appeal No. 9/2004 which was rejected as premature; after termination, he filed Misc. Appeal No. 11/2004 before Divisional Joint Registrar; Registrar allowed appeal on 19-04-2005 setting aside termination and ordering reinstatement; present writ petition filed challenging said appellate order; hearing concluded but judgment text incomplete, final outcome not recorded.

• Constitution of India, 1950: Articles 226, 227
• Agricultural Produce Market Committee Service Rules: Rule 9, Rule 12