Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
J.S.arora - Appellant
Versus
D.V.C. & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 7359 of 2006
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Termination of probationary engagement of Director (HRD) of Damodar Valley Corporation [3] - Petitioner challenged the orders of termination - Petitioner was appointed as Director (HRD) on 08 July 2003 - His continuance as a probationer came to an end on 30 January 2004, upon the passing of the impugned order - Petitioner preferred an appeal against that order of termination to the Chairman of the Corporation on 17 February 2004 - During the pendency of that appeal, the respondents appear to have taken up a proposal for appointment of the petitioner as a Director in BPSCL - Petitioner was offered the post of Head of Personnel and Administration - Petitioner made a representation to the Ministry of Power - The Committee constituted by the Corporation to examine the representation made and to look into the grievances which were raised by the petitioner concluded that there was a scope for review - The Board of the Corporation concurred with the opinion and the recommendation made by the Secretary and Chairman came to recommend that it would not be appropriate to allow the extension of the probationary period and that it would, in fact, be detrimental to the interest of the Corporation - The Court held that the assessment of the work and performance of a probationer, is a function which must be primarily discharged by the employer with the Court invoking its powers of judicial review only where such action can be said to be tainted by manifest arbitrariness and lack of probity - The Court also held that the termination of the probationary engagement of the petitioner was not based on some unsubstantiated or unproven misconduct nor has the impugned action been established to be founded on malice or motivated by extraneous considerations - The Court further held that the absence of a formal or written notice would not by itself invalidate the impugned action - The Court also held that the report of the Committee and the legal opinion were not binding on the Chairman - The Court also held that the Union respondent has, in the considered view of this Court, rightly come to the conclusion that in matters relating to officers and employees of autonomous bodies it principally has no authority to either interfere or intervene - Accordingly, and for the aforenoted reasons, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner was appointed as Director (HRD) on 08 July 2003 - His continuance as a probationer came to an end on 30 January 2004, upon the passing of the impugned order - Petitioner preferred an appeal against that order of termination to the Chairman of the Corporation on 17 February 2004 - During the pendency of that appeal, the respondents appear to have taken up a proposal for appointment of the petitioner as a Director in BPSCL - Petitioner was offered the post of Head of Personnel and Administration - Petitioner made a representation to the Ministry of Power - The Committee constituted by the Corporation to examine the representation made and to look into the grievances which were raised by the petitioner concluded that there was a scope for review - The Board of the Corporation concurred with the opinion and the recommendation made by the Secretary and Chairman came to recommend that it would not be appropriate to allow the extension of the probationary period and that it would, in fact, be detrimental to the interest of the Corporation.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the assessment of the work and performance of a probationer, is a function which must be primarily discharged by the employer with the Court invoking its powers of judicial review only where such action can be said to be tainted by manifest arbitrariness and lack of probity - The Court also held that the termination of the probationary engagement of the petitioner was not based on some unsubstantiated or unproven misconduct nor has the impugned action been established to be founded on malice or motivated by extraneous considerations - The Court further held that the absence of a formal or written notice would not by itself invalidate the impugned action - The Court also held that the report of the Committee and the legal opinion were not binding on the Chairman - The Court also held that the Union respondent has, in the considered view of this Court, rightly come to the conclusion that in matters relating to officers and employees of autonomous bodies it principally has no authority to either interfere or intervene - Accordingly, and for the aforenoted reasons, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Issues: Whether the termination of the probationary engagement of the petitioner was valid - Whether the absence of a formal or written notice would invalidate the impugned action - Whether the report of the Committee and the legal opinion were binding on the Chairman - Whether the Union respondent has the authority to interfere or intervene in matters relating to officers and employees of autonomous bodies.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the assessment of the work and performance of a probationer, is a function which must be primarily discharged by the employer with the Court invoking its powers of judicial review only where such action can be said to be tainted by manifest arbitrariness and lack of probity - The Court also held that the termination of the probationary engagement of the petitioner was not based on some unsubstantiated or unproven misconduct nor has the impugned action been established to be founded on malice or motivated by extraneous considerations - The Court further held that the absence of a formal or written notice would not by itself invalidate the impugned action - The Court also held that the report of the Committee and the legal opinion were not binding on the Chairman - The Court also held that the Union respondent has, in the considered view of this Court, rightly come to the conclusion that in matters relating to officers and employees of autonomous bodies it principally has no authority to either interfere or intervene - Accordingly, and for the aforenoted reasons, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
Final Decision: Accordingly, and for the aforenoted reasons, the writ petition fails and shall stand dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The petitioner challenges the orders of 30 January 2004, 03 June 2004 and 04 April 2006. By the first order of 30 January 2004, the engagement of the petitioner as Director (HRD) in the Damodar Valley Corporation [3] on probation came to be terminated with immediate effect. By the order of 03 June 2004, the Bokaro Power Supply Company Private Limited [4] is stated to have offered the position of Head of Personnel and Administration to the petitioner. BPSCL is a joint venture entity formed by SAIL and the Corporation. Assailing the order of termination, the petitioner came to prefer W.P.(C) 20141/2005 before this Court. That petition was disposed of on 22 February 2006, with a direction to the Union - respondent to decide a representation that had been preferred by the petitioner aggrieved by his termination. Pursuant to the directions issued on that writ petition, the Union - respondent has proceeded to pass the order of 04 April 2006, noting that since the Corporation was an autonomous body which was governed by independent statutory regulations, no interference with the decision so taken was merited.
[3] Corporation
[4] BPSCL
2. The facts on which there is no major dispute inter partes are as follows. The petitioner was granted appointment as Director (HRD) on 08 July 2003. His continuance as a probationer came to an end on 30 January 2004, upon the passing of the impugned order. The petitioner is stated to have preferred an appeal against that order of termination to the Chairman of the Corporation on 17 February 2004. It was during the pendency of that appeal that the respondents appear to have taken up a proposal for appointment of the petitioner as a Director in BPSCL. The petitioner asserts that initially he was offered the post of Director (Personnel) in BPSCL. However, the ultimate appointment letter which came to be addressed to the petitioner offered him the post of Head of Personnel and Administration as noted hereinbefore. The petitioner is, thereafter, stated to have made a representation to the Ministry of Power. It was this representation and the proceedings which ensued thereafter which fell for notice and consideration by this Court in the writ petition which was preferred.
3. Reverting back to the period while the aforesaid representation before the Ministry of Power was pending, the petitioner has by way of a separate paper-book also placed on the record various internal communications and file notings as existing on the record of the Corporation. Those records bear out that on 10 August 2005, the Chairman of the Corporation constituted a four-member committee to examine the representation made and to look into the grievances which were raised by the petitioner. The terms of reference of that Committee are set forth in its report dated 05 September 2005. The terms of reference which would be of some relevance are extracted herein below: -
"1. To examine all facts regarding the process of appointment of Shri J.S. Arora as Director (HRD), DVC and reasons for his subsequent termination from DVC service in the light of representations made by Shri Arora against his termination and related references from MOP, GOI and others.
2. To consider relevant rules and regulations in DVC as well as Govt. of India regarding such appointment and termination in DVC service and whether rules were properly followed in the instant case.
3. Final observation / recommendation including action to be taken by DVC on the appeal of Shri Arora made to Chairman, DVC for his reinstatement.
4. To review and recommend the general appointment procedures to be adopted for similar appointments in future to avoid controversy."
4. Taking into consideration the entire record as it existed and culminated in the passing of the impugned order or termination, the Committee proceeded to record its conclusions in its report of 05September 2005. While examining the issue of validity of termination of the probationary engagement of the petitioner, it
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
