IMPORTANT POINT
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of an express order of confirmation for an employee to be considered confirmed in service, and the employer's right to terminate services if found unsuitable during the probation period.

ORDER :

1. The respondent joined the appellant as a Trainee Engineer on 05.10.1981. As he completed the period of training, he was designated as Commercial Engineer with effect from 07.10.1982. He was placed on probation for a period of on year, which was extended. Thereafter his probation was declared with effect from 06.01.1984.

2. Disciplinary proceedings were commenced against him which resulted in appellant being dismissed. It must be noted that the charge against him was that he forged the signature of Manager, Production (TC) in two leave applications and also forged the signature of the Manager, Projection (TC) on the Employees Attendance Certificate certifying his own attendance. Thereafter, it appears, the case of the respondent was considered sympathetically. The following order is passed which evidenced his appointment. The said order is dated 10.02.1986:

“Shri D. Vijay Kumar S/o Shri D. Chittari is a re-a- pointed in this organisation as Engineer on a starting pay of Rs.1100/-p.m. in the company’s pay scale of Rs.1100-60-1940/-with effect from 20th October, 1986 (FN) in terms of office order No. PA:W8:8604:D:DV:86 dated 10.10.86 of the Executive Director. He is entitled to usual allowances admissible under rules from time to time.

He will be on trial for a period of one year with effect from 20.10.86 during which his performance work and conduct including punctuality attendance will be reviewed periodically and decision taken for his continuance or otherwise. During the trial period, his services are liable for termination without notice or without assigning reasons therefore and on satisfactory completion, which shall not be deemed to have been completed unless he is informed in writing, his services will be liable for termination by either side giving six months notice or payment of salary in lieu thereof.

He will be governed by the service rules & regulations including the conduct rules and administrative orders of the company in force from time to time and shall obey all such orders and directions he may receive from his superiors.

He will be treated as fresh entrant for all purposes and he will be junior most to all those who are already in EI grade on the date of his appointment in this organisation i.e. 20.10.86.

He is allotted staff No. 1882252 and posted to commercial, CDC (840) as commercial engineer (CDC).”

3. Thereafter, it is the case of the appellant that the performance of the respondent was not on expected lines. Memo dated 29.04.1989 may be noticed at this stage.

“During last financial year i.e. from 01.04.88 to 31.03.89 it is observed that you were absent from duty for 176 days, out of which you have applied various types of leaves, for 48½ days and the same were sanctioned post-facto and for the balance 127½ days your absence was un-authorised. Hence you are advised to improve year attendance and willingness to work in future, in your own interest.”

4. The respondent filed Writ petition No. 15002/1989 before the High Court. Therein, the relief sought was that the appellant may be directed to give continuation of respondent’s service from the date of first dismissal to the date of his reappointment.

5. The said writ petition culminated in judgment dated 07.09.1990. The following may be noticed: -

“True it is the scope of this writ petition is very limited; but is confirmed only to the continuation of the petitioners service from the date of dismissable to the date of reinstatement and other attendant benefits. In view of the assertion in the counter affidavit that there was a complete break in the service of the petitioner on account of the order of dismissal which was affirmed in appeal. I am not persuaded to grant the relief which the petitioner seeks in this writ petition.

Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner may be held entitled atleast to a declaration of his probation of confirmation in terms of the Standing Order. Those are not matters covered by this writ petition. The petitioner h