JUDGMENT

G.S. Sandhawalia, J. - The issue for consideration in the present Letters Patent Appeal is judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in CWP No.18905 of 2015 Rama Rani v. DAV University , Jalandhar- Pathankot Highway' decided on 29.03.2017, wherein the writ petition was dismissed and the challenge to the termination order of the writ petitioner, who was on probation was held not to be punitive or stigmatic. It was recorded that there was no requirement of holding a departmental inquiry for a probationer and in the absence of any infirmity in the orders passed by the respondents no relief was granted.

2. Counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that if the veil is lifted, it is apparently a stigmatic order and there is a report of the Committee against the appellant as per the written statement, which was not referred to by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, it could not be held that the performance was not upto the mark. The impugned order by which the services had been dispensed with on 04.08.2015 (Annexure P-1) talked about Clause 5 (a) of the appointment letter, whereas the issue of probation was as per the Clause 1 of the letter which provided the period of probation could be extended depending upon the performance in accordance with statutes/rules of the University. It was, accordingly, submitted that an extension had been granted by the respondent- University and during the tenure of the said extension the services had been dispensed with. Therefore, dispensing with the services with 3 months salary in lieu of the notice period was in contradiction to the dispensing of the services of a probationer which would depend upon the performance of the said employee.

3. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that the termination would be valid so long it was not punitive or stigmatic, as the writ petitioner was on probation while relying upon the judgment passed in Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra (2008) 3 SCC 310 and, thus, came to the conclusion that since 3 months salary had been deposited in lieu of the notice period, it would not be stigmatic in any manner. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the writ petitioner in Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and others , (2000) 5 SCC 152 was distinguished on the ground that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commandant and resultantly the writ petitioner's case was not similar, since there was no inquiry conducted behind the back of the writ petitioner. It was noticed that there was an incident regarding marking of presence and on the basis of an apology statement, the report of the Fact Finding Committee and that of review of the work, it was decided to relieve the writ petitioner, which was within the right of the employer. Similarly, the judgments passed in V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab , (2000) 3 SCC 239 and Registrar General, High Court of Gujarat and another v. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti , (2013) 16 SCC 59 were also distinguished.

4. We are of the considered opinion that the facts would go on to show otherwise that the dispensation of services was apparently on account of an alleged misconduct which was further proved from the fact that in the written statement also it is conceded that a three members Fact Finding Committee of Senior Professors was constituted by the Advisor to the Chancellor on the disciplinary matter concerning the writ petitioner and one Ms. Ranjit Kaur. The same was justified that it was to find out the factual position before taking further action in the matter.

5. The averments made in the written statement itself goes on