1. Appointment on probation — Termination of service during extended probation — Challenge to termination based on constitutional and service rule protections. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1963 Supreme(SC) 51
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J.C.Shah : K.C.Das Gupta : K.N.Wanchoo : M.Hidayatullah : P.B.Gajendragadkar
Ranendra Chandra Banerjee
Versus
Union Of India
Case No. : 271 of 1962
Date of Decision : 2/18/63
Advocates Appeared: Bindra N.S. : Dhebar R.H. : Mehta K.R. : Sachthey R.N.
Advocates:
K.R.MEHTA, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, R.N.SACH
K.R.MEHTA, N.S.BINDRA, R.H.Dhebar, R.N.SACH
Termination of a probationer's services for unsuitability, not as punishment, does not attract Article 311(2) protection. Service rules apply despite contrary contractual terms in appointment letters unless a specific law provides otherwise. Compliance with show-cause requirements is met if grounds are communicated and the explanation is considered.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 311(2) - Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - Rules 3(a), 49 and 55-B - Termination of services of a probationer - Protection under Article 311(2) does not apply where services of a temporary government servant or probationer are terminated not by way of punishment, but in accordance with the rules or terms of contract (Para 5) - Discharge of a probationer does not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311(2) unless it is a measure of punishment (Para 5).
(B) Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules - Rule 3(a) and Rule 55-B - Conflict between contract terms and rules - Rule 3(a) excludes rules only for persons whose appointment and conditions of employment are made by special provision under any law - A term in a letter of appointment providing for termination without notice is not a special provision by virtue of any law - Therefore, Rule 55-B, which requires a probationer to be apprised of grounds and given an opportunity to show cause before termination for unsuitability, applies notwithstanding contrary terms in the appointment letter (Para 8).
(C) Compliance with Rule 55-B - Sufficient compliance is achieved if the defects noticed in the work making the probationer unsuitable are pointed out and the probationer is given an opportunity to show cause, and the explanation provided is duly considered (Para 10).
Facts of the case:
A probationer appointed to a government post had their probation extended multiple times. Eventually, the authority determined the probationer was unsuitable for the post and terminated the services after providing a show-cause notice. The probationer challenged the termination, claiming protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and specific service rules, arguing that the termination was illegal due to non-compliance with these protections.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the termination was not by way of punishment and thus did not attract Article 311(2). It held that Rule 55-B of the service rules applied because the contractual terms in the appointment letter did not override the rules under Rule 3(a). However, the court concluded that the requirements of Rule 55-B were met as the probationer was informed of the defects in their work and given an opportunity to explain.
Issues: Whether the termination of a probationer's services for unsuitability attracts the protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution; whether service rules apply when the appointment letter contains terms allowing termination without notice; and whether the procedure of providing a show-cause notice satisfies the requirements of Rule 55-B.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the discharge of a probationer not as a punishment does not constitute dismissal or removal under Article 311(2). It further established that service rules prevail over general contractual terms in appointment letters unless the appointment is governed by a specific law. Compliance with rules requiring a show-cause notice for probationers is satisfied if the grounds for unsuitability are communicated and the response is considered.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Entitlement to protection under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and compliance with Rules 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services Rules. (Para 2 )
3. Discharge of a probationer not as punishment does not attract Article 311(2); contract terms do not override service rules unless based on a law. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
4. Termination of a probationer's service in accordance with rules and not as punishment is not dismissal or removal under Article 311(2). (Para 5 , 6 , 8 )
5. Appeal dismissed; termination held valid as Rule 55-B was complied with. (Para 10 )
6. Does Article 311(2) protect a probationer from termination?
No, if the termination is not by way of punishment. A probationer can be discharged in accordance with rules, and such discharge does not amount to dismissal or removal under Article 311(2). (Para 5 )
7. Does a contract term allowing termination without notice override general service rules?
Not if the rules apply to the employee and the contract term is not a special provision made by or under any law. Standard appointment letter terms do not exclude the application of service rules. (Para 8 )
8. What constitutes sufficient compliance with Rule 55-B regarding the discharge of a probationer?
Compliance is achieved when the probationer is apprised of the grounds for proposed termination (defects in work) and given an opportunity to show cause, with their explanation being duly considered. (Para 10 )
K.N.WANCHOO, J.
(1) THIS is an appeal on a certificate granted by the Punjab High court. The appellant was selected for the post of Programme Assistant on 3/05/1949 and was appointed on probation for one year, and the letter of appointment said that during the said period his services might be determinated without any notice and without any cause being assigned. He was asked to accept the offer on this condition. The appellant accepted the offer and joined service on 4/06/1949. His period of probation expired on 3/06/1950, but it was extended from time to time. On 4/07/1952, the appellant was informed that his probation period could not be extended and was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated. The appellant showed cause. He was finally informed that the explanation given by him was not satisfactory and that his services were to be terminated after 31/08/1952.
(2) THE appellant then filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High court and his main contention was that he was entitled to the protection of Art. 31 1 (2) of the Constitution and as this was not afforded to him the order terminating his services was illegal. Besides it was urged on his behalf that he was governed by rr. 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and therefore lie was entitled to the protection of those rules. As however his services had been terminated without compliance with those rules he was in any case entitled to reinstatement.
(3) THE High court held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. It further held that rr. 49 and 55-B of the Rules did not apply to the appellant and he was governed by the contract of his service which provided that his services might be terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned during the period of probation. The High court further held that rr. 49 and 55-B would not in any case apply to the appellant in the face of the contract under which he was appointed in view of r. 3 (a) of the Rules. The petition was consequently dismissed, but the High court granted a certificate to the appellant that the case was a fit one for appeal to this court; and that is how the matter has come up before us.
(4) IT, is not in dispute that the appellant was never confirmed in his appointment. It is also not in dispute that though the letter of appointment said that the appellant will be on probation for a period of one year, his probation period was extended from time to time. We agree with the High court that though the letter of appointment did not say in so many words that the probation was likely to be extended, it was implicit therein that the probation would continue till such time as the appellant was confirmed or discharged and so would the-term in the appointment letter that his services were liable to be terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned, during the period of probation.
(5) THE first question that falls for determination is whether the appellant is entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2); for if he is entitled to that protection it is not disputed that that provision was not complied with in this case before his services were terminated. It is now well settled that the protection of Art. 311 of the Constitution applies to temporary government servants also where dismissal, removal or reduction in rank is sought to be inflicted by way of punishment. But it is equally well settled that where the services of a temporary government servant are terminated not by way of punishment, Art. 311 will not apply and the services of such a servant can be terminated under the terms of the contract or by giving him the usual one months notice . [see, Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India (1)]. Further it is equally well settled that a government servant who is on probation can b
