Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
S.A. Bobde, L. Nageswara Rao, JJ.
Director Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (ARIES) & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
Devendra Joshi & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 4208 of 2011)
With
Devender Joshi – Appellants
Versus
Director Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences (ARIES) & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. ..... of 2018 (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10679 of 2011)
Decided On : 19-03-2018
(b) Service law – Termination – On completion of probation period – Not punitive – Although misconduct was alleged, it cannot be said to be foundation of termination. (Para 12)
(1999) 2 SCC 21; (2015) 15 SCC 151 – Relied upon
Facts of the case:
Respondent No.1 was offered appointment to the post of Engineer-B (Civil). He had joined the post. Respondent No.1 was placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining which was reduced to one year pursuant to an amendment to the bye-laws.
Respondent No.1 was directed to submit a detailed report regarding certain irregularities in improvements that were suggested in road infrastructure required for transportation of equipments.
An explanation was called from Respondent No.1 for an alleged misconduct. The Appellant No.2 terminated the services of Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 submitted a representation to the Appellant for re-instatement which was rejected.
Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition.
The High Court held that the Order dated 31st December, 2008 being an innocuous order of termination did not cast any stigma against Respondent No.1. The High Court set aside the Order of termination and extended the probationary period of Respondent No.1 by one more year. There was a further direction to the Appellant to consider the representation of Respondent No.1 either by giving the post of Engineer-B (Civil) to Respondent No.1 or by reverting Respondent No.4 to the post of Engineer -C (Civil).
Finding of the Court:
There is no basis for conclusions in the impugned judgment.
Result: Civil Appeal No. 2926 of 2018 allowed. Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No. 10679 of 2011 dismissed.
JUDGMENT
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
Civil Appeal No. ___ of 2018 @Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.4208 of 2011
Leave granted.
This Appeal is filed against the judgment of the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital by which the order dated 31st December, 2008 terminating the services of Respondent No.1 was set aside.
2. Respondent No.1 was offered appointment to the post of Engineer-B (Civil) on 1st November, 2007 after he was selected pursuant to advertisement dated 10th August, 2007. He had joined on 1st January, 2008. Respondent No.1 was placed on probation for a period of two years from the date of joining. Appellant No.2 was informed by the Competent Authority on 22nd May, 2008 that the period of probation for Group 'A' officers had been reduced from two years to one year. By a letter dated 15th October, 2008, Respondent No.1 was informed that his period of probation had been reduced from two years to one year pursuant to an amendment to the bye-laws.
3. An internal Office Note dated 24th July, 2008 was issued directing Respondent No.1 to submit a detailed report regarding certain irregularities in improvements that were suggested in road infrastructure required for transportation of equipments. By Office Memorandum dated 18th August, 2008, the Registrar communicated certain shortcomings in the discharge of duty by the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 was directed to discharge his duties diligently and complete the allotted tasks within a given time frame. Respondent No.1 was also asked to submit his explanation regarding initiation and completion of the work relating to providing tanks for water supply for a building without prior intimation and without getting formal approval of the proposal/ estimates for the construction of the same.
4. An Office Memorandum dated 23rd December, 2008 was issued calling for an explanation from Respondent No.1 for an alleged misconduct. Reference was made to a preliminary inquiry which revealed that the Respondent No.1 was responsible for removal of a pen-drive and copying the files available in the said pen-drive to his personal computer without permission. By Office Memorandum dated 31st December, 2008, the Appellant No.2 terminated the services of Respondent No.1. It was mentioned in the said order that the services of Respondent No.1 were discontinued beyond the period of probation of one year. Respondent No.1 submitted a representation to the Appellant for re-instatement which was rejected by an Order dated 2nd April, 2009.
5. Respondent No.1 filed a Writ Petition before the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital challenging orders dated 31st December, 2008 and 2nd April, 2009. It was averred in the said Writ Petition that the Respondent No.4, who was selected for appointment to the post of Engineer Group 'B' pursuant to an advertisement issued on 18th April, 2008, was appointed as Engineer-C (Civil). Respondent No.1 was aggrieved by the appointment of Respondent No.4 to Group 'C', which was a post higher than what he was holding for which reason he made a representation on 8th October, 2008. Respondent No.1 sought for the benefits that were given to Respondent No.4 and made a request for appointment as In-Charge/ Project Engineer of the construction projects at Monora Peak and Devasthal. It was alleged by Respondent No.1 that Respondent No.4 was inimically disposed towards him in view of the representations made against his appointment to Group 'C' post. According to the Respondent No.1, the Office Memorandum dated 23rd December, 2008 was at the behest of Respondent No.4 which formed the foundation of the Order dated 31st December, 2008 by which his services were terminated.
6. The Appellant filed a reply in which the Order dated 31st December, 2008 was justified on the ground that the termination of the services of Respondent No.1 at the end of the period of probation was due to unsatisfactory work and not for any misconduct. The Appellant contended that there was no stigma attached to the Or
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
