Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Yashwant Varma, J.
J.S. Arora - Appellant
Versus
D.V.C. - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7359 of 2006
Decided On : 18-01-2022
Probationers can be terminated without written warnings if verbally cautioned about performance shortcomings; courts will defer to employer's reasonable assessment unless manifest arbitrariness is shown.
Headnote:(A) Damodar Valley Corporation Service Regulations, 1957 - Regulation 12 - Termination of probationary services - Petitioner's engagement as Director (HRD) terminated for unsatisfactory performance during probation - Claim of lack of written warnings deemed insufficient in absence of a mandatory requirement for written cautions - Assessment based on verbal feedback and review by competent authorities. (Paras 12-19, 39-43)
(B) Administrative Law - Judicial Review - The scope is limited; courts should defer to employer’s assessment of performance unless manifest arbitrariness is evident. (Paras 40, 41)
(C) Constitutional Law - Employment Rights - Probationers are entitled to fair evaluation but have no indefeasible right to continuation until confirmed. (Paras 32, 42)
Facts of the case:
The appellant’s engagement as Director (HRD) was terminated by the Corporation without notice based on a review of performance that concluded deficiencies and inefficiency were observed. Post-termination, an offer from a subsidiary of the Corporation was made but was declined by the appellant.
Findings of Court:
The termination was held to conform with DVC Service Regulations, with no evidence of required written warnings corroborated.
Issues: Whether termination was arbitrary and lacked procedural fairness, and whether the absence of written warnings invalidated the termination.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded the assessment process was fairly undertaken and did not prove to be arbitrary or biased; the absence of formal warnings does not invalidate the termination if the probationer was verbally cautioned.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. termination of employment during probation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. committee report validates termination decision. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. lack of written warnings does not invalidate termination. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. legal precedents support assessment of probationers. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. procedural compliance in employment terminations. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. continuous monitoring of employee performance necessary. (Para 16) |
| 7. judicial review limited to fairness of evaluation. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 47) |
JUDGMENT
Yashwant Varma, J. 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 [Corporation] on probation came to be terminated with immediate effect. By the order of 03 June 2004, the Bokaro Power Supply Company Private Limited [BPSCL] 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.
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 hereinbelow: -
"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 take
