The main legal point established in the judgment is that an order of termination during probation must not be stigmatic or punitive, and unsatisfactory work and conduct during probation does not necessarily amount to stigma.

Chandramauli Kr.Prasad, J.

1. This application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.12.1996 whereby the service of the petitioner, while on probation has been terminated by paying him one months salary in lieu of notice. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 31.3,1997 (Annexure-2) whereby the petitioners prayer to revoke the order of termination had been rejected.

2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure-5) petitioner was appointed as a Peon on probation for a period of six months. The order of appointment indicated that his service can be terminated during the period of probation by giving him one months notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of appointment petitioner joined his duty at Saraiya Branch of the Respondent Canara Bank on 30th of March, 1996 on probation for a period of six months and during that period, his probation was extended to afford him an opportunity to improve the performance by another three months i.e. 29.12.1996. During the period of probation petitioner absented himself unauthorisedly for a period of 151 days. The Respondent/Bank found the work of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory and, accordingly, terminated his probation by giving him one months salary in lieu of notice and while passing the impugned order it observed as follows:

"AND WHEREAS, Shri U.K. Sinhas probationary period was extended by further period of three months i.e., till 29.12.1996 in order to provide him an opportunity to improve his working/performance, in view of his (a) casual and indifferent approach to work and his work being found unsatisfactory

(b) frequent unauthorized absence for an aggregate period of 110 days during the probationary period and

(c) indiscriminate issuance of cheques without providing sufficient funds in his account.

AND WHEREAS, he has failed to improve his working performance and his work performance continues to be unsatisfactory.

NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordered that the services of Shri U.K. Sinha (66488), Probationary Peon, be terminated in accordance with the Chapter V Regulation 7 Clause 5 of Canara Bank Service Code, by paying him one months salary in lieu of notice, which shall be paid to him. The DD no. 202944 dated 14.12.1996 for Rs. 2611.40 being one months salary is enclosed."

3. Mr. Shyama Prasad Mukherjee, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner refers to the aforesaid order terminating the probation of the petitioner and submits that ex facie the said order is stigmatic in nature and hence termination in sum and substance amounts to dismissal and the same, having been passed without any inquiry is arbitrary and in violation of the principles of natural justice, which renders the same illegal in the eye of law. In support of his submission he has placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of V.P. Ahuja V/s. State of Punjab, (2000)3 S.C.C. 239 and my attention has been drawn to paragraph 8 of the judgment which reads as follows :-

"The affidavits filed by the parties before the High Court as also in this Court indicate the background in which the order, terminating the services of the appellant, came to be passed. Such an order which, on the face of it, is stigmatic, could not have been passed without holding a regular inquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant."

4. There is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Mukherjee that in case the order terminating the probation is stigmatic in nature, same would amount to dismissal and before that a regular inquiry has to be held. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent-Canara Bank submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that the impugned order is stigmatic and punitive in nature is misconceived and therefore before terminating the probation the Bank was not obliged to hold a regular de