The termination of a probationer's services requires an inquiry if the termination order is stigmatic and based on allegations of misconduct. The employee must be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

JUDGMENT :

Mansoor Ahmad Mir, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated 27th February, 2008, passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in CWP No. 526 of 2005, titled Roshan Lal v. The Hon'ble Chief Justice and others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner (respondent herein) came to be allowed and the termination order was quashed, (for short, the impugned order).

2. At the very outset, we may refer to the termination order as under:

"Whereas Shri Roshan Lal s/o. Shri Sunka Ram, resident of Village Basaral, Tehsil Nadaun, District Hamirpur was appointed as Chowkidar vide this office order No. DSJ(HMR)EC/2-11/85-1784 dated 10th March, 2004, consequent to acceptance of offer of appointment by him vide this office order No. DSJ(HMR)EC/2-11/85-1713 dated 4th March, 2004, vide said offer of appointment said Shri Roshan Lal was offered a temporary job on probation for a period of two years, which he accepted, leading to his appointment as Chowkidar.

Whereas during the period of probation, conduct of Shri Roshan Lal was not found satisfactory. Hence in public interest services of Shri Roshan Lal are dispensed with immediate effect and shall stand discharged (sic) from service."

(Emphasis applied)

3. It appears that the writ petitioner was on probation and was shown door without conducting an inquiry on the ground that his conduct was not satisfactory.

4. Thus, the moot question is whether the services of a probationer can be dispensed with without conducting an inquiry. The answer to the above proposition depends upon the language employed in the termination order. In case the termination order is stigmatic and has been passed after raising a finger about the conduct of the employee, the said order is punitive in nature and in that case, the employer is under obligation to conduct a regular inquiry. In case the termination order is simpliciter without any remarks about the conduct of the employee, in that eventuality, no regular inquiry is required to be conducted.

5. Our this view is fortified by the judgment of the Apex Court in Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and another v. Jayshree Chaman Lal Buddhbhatti, (2013) 16 SCC 59. It is apt to reproduce paragraphs 20, 29 and 31 of the said judgment hereunder:

"20. The question, therefore, comes for consideration, as stated earlier, as to whether this is a case of termination simpliciter of the services of a probationer on account of her unsuitably for the post that she was holding, or whether it is a termination of her services after holding an inquiry behind her back, and without giving her an opportunity to defend.

xxxxxx xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxx

29. The propositions in this behalf, as to what constitutes a motive, and what constitutes a foundation for the action were once again crystallized in the judgment of this Court in Chandra Prakash Shah v. State of U.P. & Ors. 2000 (5) SCC 152, where in paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment of this Court laid down the relevant propositions which are as follows:--

"28. The important principles which are deducible on the concept of "motive" and "foundation", concerning a probationer, are that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for the determination of suitability of the probationer for the post in question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation, an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry that a decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an inquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order terminating the service is passed on the basis of that inquiry, the order would be punitive in nature as the inquiry was held not for assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in question, but to find out th