Termination of a probationary employee requires a departmental inquiry if allegations of misconduct are made, and continued employment without formal disengagement results in deemed permanency.

JUDGMENT :

RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. On 1^st September, 2023, this Court [Coram : Sunil B.Shukre and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.] passed the following order :

1. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2 further time is granted to file reply.

2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent no.3 submits on instructions that no prayer has been made whatsoever against Respondent no.3 and Respondent no.3 has got nothing to do with this petition and therefore, she makes a prayer for deleting the name of Respondent no.3 from the array of Respondents.

3. On going through the memo of the petition, however, we find that there is some reference to the complaint of alleged misbehaviour with the wife of Chairman of GMR Group, which probably was the reason for unpleasant action which has been taken against the Petitioner and which is impugned in this petition. Had that been so, it would be necessary for Respondent no.3 to make things clear as to whether or not any complaint of misbehaviour whatsoever has been made by or on behalf of GMR Group against the Petitioner. The Respondent no.3 is at liberty to file its reply in the matter clarifying the position.

4. Stand over to 29^th September 2023 High on Board.

3. On an Interim Application (L) No.8024 of 2024, this Court [Coram : Nitin Jamdar (as His Lordship then was) and M.M.Sathaye, JJ.], had passed an order on 22^nd March, 2024, as under :

The petition is filed challenging the order of termination issued to the Petitioner and for a direction to reinstate the Petitioner in service as Airport Director. This interim application is taken out in this petition seeking a prayer to restrain the Respondents from filling the vacancy of the Airport Director. The learned counsel for Respondent No.2 states that there is no warrant to issue any restraint order at present because due to the declaration of Code of Conduct the Respondents are not filling up this vacancy till the next date. The statement is accepted.

2. Stand over to 12 June 2024 under the caption “For Directions”.

4. On 29^th January, 2025, this Court had recorded the submission of the learned Advocate representing Respondent No.3, on instructions that no complaint was lodged against the Petitioner by Respondent No.3, on behalf of the GMR Group. The learned Advocate has further submitted, on instructions that Respondent No.3 does not desire to file any affidavit in reply since it only desires to make a statement to be recorded by this Court that no complaint has been lodged by Respondent No.3 against the Petitioner.

5. This is a peculiar case. The Petitioner was enrolled in the Indian Air Force on 1^st February, 1990 and he served as a combatant member in the trade of Air Field Safety Operator. He was selected as an Assistant ATCO. After completing 20 years on31^st January, 2010, he expressed his inability to continue in service.

6. The Petitioner was appointed as Officer-in-charge Airport Operations and Safety at Baldota Koppal Aerodrome in Karnataka, between 1^st May, 2011 to 28^th January, 2019. By order dated 28^th July, 2021, he was appointed as Airport Director of Shirdi Airport after being interviewed. This was a fresh appointment with the Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited. He was placed on probation for a period of one year. He joined duties on 2^nd August, 2021.

7. On 4^th February, 2022, he was served with a show cause notice wherein, it was mentioned that a serious complaint, dated 3^rd February, 2022 has been received by Respondent No.2 and the administration has taken the said issue extremely serious. The Petitioner was directed to submit “self -explanatory reply as per evidence on each and every issue raised in the complaint to the headquarters by 5 p.m. on Monday 7^th February 2022”.

8. In this context, the complaint lodged by a person, Ms. Deepali Bhosale was served upon the Petitioner. According to such complaint, serious allegations wer