1988 Supreme(Cal) 108

High Court Of Calcutta
M. N. RAY, DILIP KUMAR BASU
CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT Corporation - Appellant
Versus
G.K.BHATTACHARYA - Respondent
F. M. A. T.  4355  Of  1985
Decided On : 03/16/1988

Headnote:

CALCUTTA STATE TRANSPORT CORPORATION - EMPLOYEES SERVICE REGULATIONS - SECTION 17 AND 17A - INTERPRETATION - APPOINTMENT ON PROBATION - EXTENSION OF PROBATIONARY PERIOD - DEEMING PROVISION - TERMINATION OF SERVICE - LEGALITY - PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE - VIOLATION.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner was appointed as Deputy Director of Operation in Calcutta State Transport Corporation on probation for a period of one year. After expiry of one year, he was awarded an increment. On 19th May, 1984, the Chairman of Calcutta State Transport Corporation informed the petitioner that the period of probation was extended till 14th November, 1984. On 8th June, 1984, the petitioner was directed by the Chairman not to attend the office with effect from 9th June, 1984, without giving any reason and also without giving any written intimation. On 9th June, 1984, petitioner made a representation to the Chairman, challenging the legality of the said verbal Order, dated 8th June, 1984 and requested the Chairman, to withdraw the said verbal Order as well as Memo. , dated 19th May, 1984, purporting to deconfirm the petitioner inasmuch as, according to Section 17 A of CSTC Employees Service Regulation read with Clause 2 of the appointment letter, the petitioner should be deemed to be a permanent employee with effect from 15th December, 1983. The petitioner applied for leave on 11th June, 1984, for 9 days, i. e. , from l1th June to 20th June, 1984. Only on 18th June, 1984, the petitioner respondent was served with an Order of termination passed and signed by the Chairman, CSTC, dated 8th June, 1984, which was the subject matter of challenge before the Trial Court. The learned Judge allowed the writ petition and considered Regulations 17, 17 A, 18 and 18a of CSTC Regulations and also the specific stipulation in the appointment letter that the probationary period would be for one year from the date of joining and the confirmation to the post shall depend upon satisfactory completion of the probationary period. The Trial Judge also considered that admittedly, there was no complaint against the petitioner and increment was granted just after expiry of the probationary period, i. e. , one year. In the determination by the learned Judge, it was observed that Regulation 17 A of the CSTC Regulations provides a deeming Clause after expiry of the probationary period and the petitioner was confirmed on and from 15th November, 1983, after expiry of one year's probationary period in terms of Clause 17 A read with Clause 2 of the appointment letter.

Finding of the Court:

On appeal, the High Court held that the appointing authority had the authority to appoint any person on probation initially for one year and thereafter, can extent the probationary period for a period of two years. The High Court further held that the deeming provision under Section 17 A could be attracted if the appointee was allowed to continue after completion of his extended period of two years, which is a maximum limit of probation, contemplated in Regulation 17. Accordingly, the High Court held that the appellant, by terminating the service of the probationer within the maximum period of probation, as prescribed in Regulation 17, has acted within the limit of their authority and in accordance with the law.

Issues: 1. Whether the appointing authority had the authority to extend the probationary period beyond one year? 2. Whether the deeming provision under Regulation 17A could be attracted after the expiry of the initial probationary period of one year or only after the expiry of the extended probationary period of two years? 3. Whether the termination of the petitioner's services was in violation of the principles of natural justice?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. Yes, the appointing authority had the authority to extend the probationary period beyond one year, as per the scheme of Regulation 17 and the specific stipulation in the appointment letter. 2. The deeming provision under Regulation 17A could be attracted only after the expiry of the extended probationary period of two years, as per the scheme of Regulation 17 and the specific stipulation in the appointment letter. 3. No, the termination of the petitioner's services was not in violation of the principles of natural justice, as the petitioner was given a reasonable opportunity of hearing before the termination of his services.

Final Decision: Appeal allowed. The Order of the learned Trial Judge was set aside.