Termination of a probationary employee's services without a departmental inquiry is justified if in accordance with the rules and terms of appointment.

ORDER

Rajbir Sehrawat, J. (Oral). - The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 03.06.2020 (Annexure P-7) vide which the respondent No.1 has terminated the services of the petitioner without conducting any departmental inquiry, along with certain other prayers.

2. The petitioner was appointed as Peon in the office of the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur vide appointment letter dated 05.08.2019. As per the clause (2) of the appointment letter and as per the applicable Rules the probation period specified for the petitioner was of two years. It was further mentioned in the terms of the appointment that if the work and conduct of the petitioner is not found satisfactory then his service shall be terminated without any notice. The petitioner was found absent from the duties repeatedly. In the first instance, the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam reported vide letter dated 09.10.2019 that during checking the petitioner was found absent from duty on 05.10.2019. The District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur directed the Civil Judge (Senior Division) to get explanation from the petitioner as to why he was absent from duty. The petitioner tried to explain the situation; however, his explanation could not justify his absence. Thereafter, a discreet inquiry was ordered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sunam, to find out whether the petitioner was involved in some other matter. In the meantime, another Judicial Magistrate of Sunam intimated vide letter dated 14.11.2019 that the petitioner was found absent from duty on 09.11.2019 and 10.11.2019. Once again Additional Civil Judge, Sunam vide letter dated 14.11.2019 intimated that the petitioner was found absent from duty on 11.11.2019 also. In this respect also an explanation was obtained from the petitioner and a discreet inquiry was conducted. During the inquiry it came out that against the petitioner a criminal case bearing CC No. 768 of 2019 under Sections 145, 146, 147 & 174 of the Railway Act was registered on 06.10.2019 on DD No.03 at RPF Chowki, Sunam. All these reports, as well as, the report regarding absence of the petitioner were duly sent to the District and Sessions Judge, Sangrur. The Sessions Judge again asked the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sunam for detailed report regarding absence of the petitioner. During this inquiry it was found that petitioner was involved in another FIR No.96 dated 04.11.2019 registered under Sections 354-A, 506 & 509 IPC at Police Station Joga, District Mansa. On still further inquiry into the absence of the petitioner, it was found that the petitioner was also involved in another FIR No. 19 dated 29.03.2000 registered under Sections 325, 323 & 34 IPC at Police Station Joga, District Mansa andthis FIR was also never disclosed by the petitioner to the office concerned.

3. When the petitioner was asked to furnish explanation, the petitioner has not even denied the factum of absence as such, although, he tried to give justification for his absence. Even the factum regarding the registration of the criminal cases, has not been denied by the petitioner. In view of the above factual aspect, since the petitioner was still on probation, therefore, the District and Sessions Judge did not deem it appropriate to initiate the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner, rather, he simpliciter terminated the services of the petitioner with immediate effect.

4. While arguing the case the counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since the impugned order passed by the District and Sessions Judge, whereby the services of the petitioner has been terminated, have caused stigma upon the character of the petitioner, therefore, the order stands vitiated due to non-holding of the departmental inquiry. The counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Dr. Vijaya Kumaran C.P.V. Vs. Central University of K