Probationary employees have limited protections under Article 311, permitting non-stigmatic terminations based on suitability assessments without the full rigor of disciplinary proceedings.

Judgment :

Rai Chattopadhyay, J.

1) The two above writ petitions filed by the same petitioner emanates in connection with one purported disciplinary enquiry proceeding, which has been followed by a purported order of termination of the writ petitioner from service. The first one that is W.P.No. 25707 (w) of 2017 was filed to challenge the alleged illegality of the charge sheet issued against the petitioner. In the other one that is W.P.No. 7478 (w) of 2018, the petitioner has challenged the impugned order of his termination from service. Hence, both are inter-related and this common judgment effectively decides both.

2) In the selection process started with publication of the vacancy notification in May 2016, the writ petitioner had qualified and was appointed in the respondent No.2/a public sector undertaking, under the Ministry of Power, Government of India. He was appointed to the post of Manager (Technical) pertaining to the Grade-E4. The offer of appointment was vide letter dated July 27, 2016, the petitioner’s acceptance of offer of appointment was on August 4, 2016 and finally the company’s acceptance thereof was vide order dated August 9, 2016. The petitioner was appointed from the said date and he was to successfully complete one year of probation period, before he could be made permanent in the company.

3) Dispute cropped up from the following year, when allegedly unreasonably, arbitrarily and illegally he has been issued with the suspension order dated May 22, 2017. According to the writ petitioner the same has not only been issued in violation of the Rules applicable in his case but also of the principles of natural justice. Mr. Roy, learned advocate representing the writ petitioner, has elaborated in his argument that before issuance or the order of suspension, the petitioner has never been afforded any opportunity of hearing by issuing any ‘show-cause’ notice to him. Also, that the said order of suspension was issued even without conducting any preliminary enquiry.

4) Mr. Roy has further argued that the letter of suspension dated May 22, 2017, has been issued by the AGM(HR) of the company, who is neither the appropriate or the competent Authority to do the same, as per the Schedule of Delegation of Powers as enshrined in the NTPC Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules 1977, which is the relevant Rules governing the disciplinary matters of the respondent No.2/company. He says that as per the scheme of delegation of power, the writ petitioner could have been issued with a letter of suspension only by Head of the Project [not bellow the rank of General Manager/Regional Executive Director/Executive Director]. He says further that the AGM(HR) being bellow the rank of GM, is not empowered and competent to issue the suspension letter dated May 22, 2017.

5) The letter of suspension as above was followed by a charge- sheet dated June 15, 2017, issued against the petitioner by the respondent, precisely, by the CGM(TECH), acting as a Disciplinary Authority. Mr. Roy has argued that the CGM(TECH) also being bellow the rank of Regional Executive Director/Executive Director of the said company, is not a competent officer to issue any charge-sheet against the writ petitioner as per the Schedule of Delegation of Powers, under the Rules of 1977. Thus, according to the writ petitioner, initiation of the charge-sheet suffers from jurisdictional error and competency. Also, that the charges leveled against the writ petitioner were baseless and frivolous. The said Charge-sheet was allegedly bereft of any mat