Termination of a probationary employee for unsatisfactory performance is lawful and non-stigmatic, requiring no formal inquiry or prior warning.

ORDER :

1. The present writ petition has been filed by the Senior Administrative Officer of the third respondent institute challenging the order of termination dated 09.04.2020 issued by the first respondent and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority on 09.02.2022 and the Second Appellate Authority on 25.07.2022.

(A) Factual Matrix:

2. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Senior Administrative Officer on 01.08.2018. On 13.08.2018, he was assigned additional charge of Chief Administrative Officer (in-charge) with immediate effect. He was relieved from the in-charge post on 21.10.2019. The petitioner was terminated from service on 09.04.2020 during his probation period on the ground that the third respondent found that his services are unsatisfactory. This order was challenged by the petitioner before the second respondent and the first appeal came to be dismissed on 09.02.2022. The petitioner thereafter preferred a Second Appeal before the first respondent and the same was also dismissed on 25.07.2022. All these orders are under challenge in the present writ petition.

(B) Submissions of both counsels:

3. The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner has challenged the order of termination on the following grounds:

(i) As per Section 11 of Indian Institutes of Management Act, 2017, only the Board of Governors are empowered to appoint or initiate action. However, in the present case, the order of termination has been issued by the third respondent namely the Director, Indian Institute of Management. Therefore, the order of termination is liable to be set aside on the ground that it has been issued by an incompetent authority without jurisdiction.

(ii) The order of termination points out that the termination is based upon the unsatisfactory service of the writ petitioner and therefore, it is a stigmatic order. In such circumstances, unless the order of termination is preceded by a charge memo and an enquiry after giving due opportunity to the writ petitioner, the order of termination is illegal in the eye of law.

(iii) As per Master Circular issued by the Government of India on 11.03.2019 relating to the probation and confirmation in central services, a probationer should be informed about his shortcomings well before the expiry of the original probationary period so that he can make special efforts at self-improvement. That apart, a written warning to the effect that his general performance has not been such as to justify his confirmation and that, unless he shows substantial improvement within a specified period, the question of discharging him would have to be considered. According to the petitioner, in the present case, no warning either oral or in writing has been given to the petitioner informing about his alleged shortcomings. He had further contended that as far as the Annual Performance Appraisal Report of the petitioner is concerned, they should be maintained separately for the probationer. In the present case, no such Annual Performance Appraisal report has been separately maintained for the petitioner.

(iv) The petitioner has raised certain objection with regard to the opening of a Petroleum layout within the third respondent campus. Ultimately, accepting the file notings of the writ petitioner, the first respondent has dropped the proposal. Therefore, due to malafide, the present order of termination has been passed.

(v) The learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner had relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sc