The termination of a probationer's services under Rule 7(2) of Part D of the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951, is not a punishment attracting the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution if it is based on the High Court's assessment of the probationer's suitability for continued service and not on allegations of misconduct.

M.R.SHARMA, J.

1. In exercise of the powers under Article 234 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Haryana was pleased to appoint the appellant Shri Bishan Lal Gupta to the Haryana Civil Service (Judicial Branch) with effect from December 8, 1966. While he was on probation, his services were terminated by an order passed under sub-rule (2) of Rule 7 appearing in Part D of the Haryana Civil Services (Judicial Branch) Rules, 1951 , issued in the name of the Governor of Haryana on September 11, 1969.

2. The appellant challenged the termination of his services in a suit filed before the learned Subordinate Judge, 1st Class Chandigarh, which was dismissed on August 26, 1970. He filed an appeal in this Court which came up before me while sitting in Chambers.

3. It was argued that the impugned action had been taken against the appellant on the basis of allegations of misconduct which cast an indelible stigma against his character and the order terminating his services, though innocuously worded, was hit by Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It was also submitted that the impugned order could not be deemed to have been passed by the competent authority inasmuch as there was no conclusive evidence on the record to show that the Chief Minister of Haryana had passed the relevant order on the official file. Since the questions involved were of importance and likely to arise in a large number of cases, I requested my Lord the Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench and this is how this case has come up before us for decision.

4. In the plaint presented by the appellant before the learned Subordinate Judge First Class, a large number of points were taken. It was stated that the impugned action had been taken against him because-

(1) the plaintiff failed to make the payment of stitching charges to one Mani Ram tailor of Hissar while posted at Hissar;

(2) the plaintiff put unnecessary pressure on the Station House Officer, Police Station Yamuna Nagar, while posted at Jagadhri;

(3) the plaintiff convicted Basau Ram and Dal Singh and acquitted opposite party in cross-case by accepting illegal gratification from the opponents of Basau Ram etc., and

(4) the complaints were lodged by Sarvashri Sri Ram Handa, K. Lal, Brij Lal and Ram Niwas against the plaintiff alleging acts of criminal misconduct.

5. The High Court directed Shri J. P. Gupta, the then District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, to go into these allegations which, after an enquiry, were found to be baseless. The matter was once again referred to Shri Sarup Chand Goyal, District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, who reported against the appellant. It is urged that once the appellant had been exonerated by Shri J. P. Gupta, no other enquiry could have been entrusted to Shri Sarup Chand Goyal. It was specifically pleaded that since allegations of misconduct had been levelled against the appellant his services could not have been terminated without a full-fledged enquiry. The other ground taken in the plaint which deserves a special mention is that the proposal regarding the taking of action against the appellant had not been sanctioned by the Chief Minister inasmuch as he had not put his signatures on the relevant file.

6. In the written statement the allegations made in the plaint were denied and it was stated that the services of the appellant had been terminated because the High Court considered the work and conduct of the appellant to be unsatisfactory. He was given a proper opportunity of explaining his case vis-a-vis the allegations made against him, and the explanation given by him did not find favour with the Hon ble Judges. It was also pleaded that a full-fledged enquiry was not necessary because the appellant was a mere probationer at the time when his services were terminated.

7. The learned trial Judge framed as many as 9 issues in the case out of which issues Nos. 4 and 5 only are material. They read as under :

(4) Whether the show cause notice dated 22-10-19