Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
Rajiv Sharma, J.
Tarsem Lal – Appellants.
Versus
Himachal Road Transport Corporation – Respondent
CWP No. 10889 of 2011-I
Decided On : 03.12.2012
Probation - Termination of Services - - [The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Section 2(oo)] - The court discussed the termination of services during the probation period and the legal principles governing such terminations. It highlighted the employer's right to terminate a probationer's appointment if their work and conduct are found unsatisfactory, without the need for a regular inquiry. The judgment referenced the case law to establish that a termination order during probation for unsatisfactory service cannot be considered stigmatic.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, appointed as a Driver, had his services terminated during the probation period due to unsatisfactory conduct and performance. The petitioner challenged the termination, arguing that a regular inquiry was required before the issuance of the termination order.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination was justified as the petitioner's conduct and performance during the probation period were unsatisfactory. It held that no regular inquiry was necessary for the termination during probation.
Issues: The main issue was whether the termination of the petitioner's services during the probation period was justified and whether a regular inquiry was required.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that the termination of a probationer's appointment for unsatisfactory service does not require a regular inquiry and is not stigmatic. It relied on case law to support this principle.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
Rajiv Sharma, J.
The petitioner was appointed Driver in the respondent-Corporation on 01.01.1995. He was put on probation for a period of two years. A memorandum was served upon the petitioner on 02.02.1996, to which he filed reply vide Annexure P 2. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with on 27.05.1996/30.07.1996. He preferred an appeal against the same on 18.07.1997. Thereafter, he filed a representation on 20.05.2001. The last representation was made by the petitioner on 16.11.2010. He approached this Court by way of CWP No. 1018 of 2011. The Court vide judgment, dated 26.04.2011, disposed of the petition, directing the Managing Director of the respondent-Corporation to look into Annexure P-8 and take appropriate action within a period of two months. The Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation rejected the case of the petitioner on 14.09.2011.
2. Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that it is not a case of simpliciter removal of the petitioner, but the order is punitive/penal, since services of her client have been removed on the basis of misconduct. She further argued that in case veil is lifted, then it will become evident that foundation for the removal of the petitioner was “misconduct”. She finally argued that a regular inquiry was required to be held against the petitioner before the issuance of office order, dated 27.05.1996/30.07.1996.
3. Mr. Adarsh Sharma, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently argued that the petitioner was appointed on probation on 02.01.1995 and as per one of the conditions of appointment letter, he was put on probation for a period of two years and in case his work and conduct during the period of probation was not found satisfactory, his services were liable to be dispensed with without giving him any notice.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the pleadings carefully.
5. The petitioner was appointed Driver on 02.01.1995. He was put on probation for a period of two years. During the course of probation period, the penalty of censure was imposed upon him on 16.12.1995. He has also consumed liquor on 03.09.1995, which led to registration of FIR No. 23, dated 03.09.1995. The probation period was for two years. It was open to the employer to supervise the work and functioning of the petitioner as Driver. Annexure P-3 is innocuous. It cannot be said to be penal or punitive in nature. The conduct of the petitioner has not been found satisfactory during the probation period. In these circumstances, it was open to the employer to dispense with the services of the petitioner.
6. There is no merit in the contention of Ms. Anjali Soni Verma, learned counsel for the petitioner that a regular inquiry was required to be initiated against the petitioner, since the expression “misconduct” has been used by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation while rejecting the case of the case of the petitioner on 14.09.2011. Expression “misconduct” has been loosely mentioned by the Managing Director, Himachal Road Transport Corporation, Shimla in Annexure P-10.
7. What was intended by the employer, was that the services of the petitioner could be terminated during the probation period, since his working was not found satisfactory. The order, dated 27.05.1996/30.07.1996, Annexure P-3, has not caused any stigma to the petitioner. In the instant case, termination of the petitioner is not due to misconduct, but these are the instances, which have been taken into consideration by the employer to assess the suitability of the petitioner on probation. Petitioner has been appointed as Driver. He was supposed to be vigilant while driving the vehicle. On one occasion, he has consumed liquor on duty. The penalty of censure was also imposed upon the petitioner for availing leave w.e.f. 19.04.1995 to 25.04.1995 without prior permission of the competent authority. It is reiterated that it is a c
AI
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
