Case Note & Summary
The writ petition was filed by V. Naresh, an employee of the Central Leather Research Institute (CLRI), challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chennai Bench, dated 25.03.2025 in O.A. No. 428 of 2018. The petitioner was appointed as Assistant (General) Grade-III on 19.08.2015 and was terminated from service on 19.09.2017 during his probation period under Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter, which allowed termination if his services were found unsatisfactory. The petitioner contended that Clause 13(1) required one month's notice before termination, which was not given, making the termination illegal. The respondents argued that the terms of appointment were unambiguous and that the petitioner had been given multiple opportunities to improve his performance through office memorandums extending his probation, but he failed to show improvement. The CAT rejected the original application, leading to the present writ petition. The High Court examined the terms of the appointment letter and found that Clause 13(1) did not mandate a notice period for termination during probation; it merely provided that termination could be effected by giving one month's notice or by paying salary in lieu thereof. The court held that the termination was simpliciter and not punitive, and the employer had the right to assess the petitioner's performance during probation. The court further held that a probationer has no right to continue in service if his services are unsatisfactory, and the principle of natural justice is not attracted in cases of termination simpliciter. The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the CAT's order and the termination.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination during Probation - Unsatisfactory Service - Clause 13(1) of Appointment Letter - The petitioner, appointed as Assistant (General) Grade-III, was terminated during probation under Clause 13(1) for unsatisfactory service. The court held that termination simpliciter during probation does not require prior notice if the terms of appointment do not mandate it, and the Tribunal correctly rejected the application as the termination was not punitive and the employer had the right to assess performance. (Paras 1-8)
B) Service Law - Probation - Right to Continue - No Right to Continue - A probationer has no right to continue in service beyond the probation period if his services are found unsatisfactory. The employer's decision to terminate based on performance assessment is not subject to strict judicial review unless mala fides or violation of statutory rules is shown. (Paras 6-8)
C) Service Law - Natural Justice - Termination Simpliciter - No Violation - The principle of natural justice is not attracted when termination is simpliciter and not by way of punishment. The court found that the petitioner was given opportunities to improve but failed, and the termination order was valid. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner during probation period under Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter is valid despite the absence of one month notice, and whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the original application.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 25.03.2025 and the termination order dated 19.09.2017. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
Law Points
- Termination simpliciter during probation
- Unsatisfactory service
- Clause 13(1) of appointment letter
- No requirement of one month notice for termination simpliciter
- Probationer has no right to continue
- Scope of judicial review limited to procedural compliance
- No violation of natural justice when termination is not punitive
Case Details
2026 LawText (MAD) (06) 156
WP No. 23662 of 2026 and WMP Nos. 25620 & 25622 of 2026
S. M. Subramaniam, R.Sakthivel
Mr.P.Godson Swaminathan for M/s.Isaac Chambers, Mr.K.Ramana Moorthy
The Director, Central Leather Research Institute; The Senior controller of Administration, Central Leather Research Institute; The Section Officer(E.II), Central Leather Research Institute
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, which rejected the petitioner's original application against termination during probation.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the termination order dated 19.09.2017 and the CAT order dated 25.03.2025, and to direct the respondents to reinstate him with continuity of service and all benefits.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was terminated from service during probation under Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter for unsatisfactory service, and he claimed that the termination was illegal as no one month notice was given as required by the clause.
Previous Decisions
The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, by order dated 25.03.2025 in O.A. No. 428 of 2018, rejected the original application challenging the termination.
Issues
Whether the termination of the petitioner during probation period under Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter is valid despite the absence of one month notice?
Whether the Central Administrative Tribunal erred in rejecting the original application?
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner's counsel argued that Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter requires one month notice before termination, which was not given, making the termination illegal.
Respondents' counsel argued that the terms of appointment are unambiguous; the petitioner was given opportunities to improve but failed, and the termination was valid under Clause 13(1).
Ratio Decidendi
Termination simpliciter during probation for unsatisfactory service under Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter does not require prior notice if the clause does not mandate it; the employer has the right to assess performance and terminate without notice, and such termination is not punitive. A probationer has no right to continue in service if his services are found unsatisfactory, and the principle of natural justice is not attracted in cases of termination simpliciter.
Judgment Excerpts
The present writ petition has been instituted to assail the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench dated 25.03.2025 passed in O.A.NO.428 of 2018.
The writ petitioner was appointed to the post of Assistant (General) Grade-III in the office of the respondent. During the probation period, he was terminated from service in terms of Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter dated 19.08.2015.
Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter can be invoked only after issuing one month notice which has not been done in the present case.
The terms of appointments are unambiguous. Earlier, office memorandums were issued to the writ petitioner extending the period of probation by granting opportunity to improve his performance.
The termination simpliciter during probation period for unsatisfactory service is valid and does not require prior notice if the terms of appointment do not mandate it.
Procedural History
The petitioner was appointed on 19.08.2015. During probation, his services were terminated on 19.09.2017 under Clause 13(1) of the appointment letter. He filed O.A. No. 428 of 2018 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench, which was dismissed on 25.03.2025. Aggrieved, he filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Madras High Court, which was dismissed on 24.06.2026.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
