Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Memorial Society and the Principal of Dr. Ambedkar Arts, Commerce and Science College, Chandrapur, challenged an order dated 4th March 2015 passed by the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur. The Tribunal had allowed the appeal filed by respondent No.2, Ku. Ujwala Anandrao Koche, an Assistant Professor and Head of the Department of Physical Education, challenging her termination from service. The Tribunal set aside the termination and directed reinstatement with full back wages. The facts are that respondent No.2 was appointed on 30th July 2010 as Physical Training Instructor and Assistant Professor on probation for two years. On 18th June 2012, the petitioners terminated her services effective from 17th July 2012 on the ground that her performance was not satisfactory. Aggrieved, she appealed to the College Tribunal, which allowed her appeal. The High Court, in the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, examined whether the termination of a probationer on the ground of unsatisfactory performance without holding an inquiry is valid. The Court noted that the appointment letter clearly stated that the appointment was on probation for two years and could be terminated at any time without notice if the work was not satisfactory. The termination order stated that her performance was not found satisfactory, which is a valid ground for termination of a probationer. The Court held that termination of a probationer simpliciter on the ground of unsatisfactory performance does not amount to punishment and does not require an inquiry. The employer has the right to assess the work of a probationer and terminate if not found suitable. The Court distinguished cases where termination is based on misconduct or is stigmatic, which would require an inquiry. Here, the termination was simpliciter and not punitive. The Court also held that the College Tribunal under Section 58 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 can interfere only if the termination is punitive or based on misconduct. Since the termination was simpliciter during probation, the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the Tribunal's order, and dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.2.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Unsatisfactory Performance - Termination simpliciter of a probationer on the ground of unsatisfactory performance does not amount to punishment and does not require an inquiry - The employer has the right to assess the work of a probationer and terminate if not found suitable - Held that the College Tribunal erred in treating the termination as punitive and ordering reinstatement (Paras 5-10). B) Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 - Section 58 - College Tribunal's Powers - The Tribunal can interfere only if termination is punitive or based on misconduct - A termination simpliciter during probation is not appealable under Section 58 as it is not a punishment - Held that the Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the termination (Paras 5-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of a probationary employee on the ground of unsatisfactory performance without holding an inquiry is valid and whether the College Tribunal erred in ordering reinstatement with back wages.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the College Tribunal dated 4th March 2015, and dismissed the appeal filed by respondent No.2 before the Tribunal.
Law Points
- Termination of probationary employee simpliciter without stigma is permissible
- No requirement of inquiry for termination during probation if not based on misconduct
- Probationer has no right to the post
- College Tribunal's jurisdiction under Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 Section 58
