IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, PRASHANT KUMAR, JJ.
University of Allahabad and Others - Appellants
Versus
Dr. Raghvendra Mishra and Another - Respondents
Special Appeal No. 596 Of 2024
Decided On : 26-09-2024
(A) Ordinance XLI: Conditions of Service of Teachers of the University - Termination of services of probationer - The petitioner was appointed under due process and completed satisfactory service on probation - His probation was extended, but subsequently terminated without following the prescribed procedure - The court found the termination to be stigmatic due to lack of inquiry into allegations against the petitioner - The court ruled that the termination was illegal and set aside the resolution and termination order. (Paras 17, 19, 24, 28, 60)
(B) Employment Law - Probation - The court emphasized that probationers do not have an indefeasible right to continue in employment and can be discharged based on unsatisfactory performance or conduct - The employer's discretion in terminating a probationer without inquiry is upheld if the termination is not punitive. (Paras 30, 40, 56)
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Shri Amit Saxena, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Kunal Shah, learned counsel for the appellants-respondents and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Sankalp Narain & Sri Srivats Narain, learned counsel for the respondent-petitioner.
2. Present Special Appeal has arisen from a judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 23.05.2024 passed in Writ A No.17284 of 2023 (Dr. Raghvendra Mishra vs. Union of India and 3 others) by which the writ petition filed by the petitioner has been allowed.
FACTS
3. The respondent-petitioner belongs to the category of ‘Economically Weaker Section’ and he has 50% permanent visual impairment. He is an academic scholar having Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees and completed M.Phil. and Ph.D. from Jawahar Lal Nehru University, New Delhi. In pursuance of the advertisement No.UoA/Asst. Prof/01/2021 dated 28.09.2021 published by the University of Allahabad,[University.], he applied for post of ‘Assistant Professor’ in the Department of Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit and Oriental Languages of the University on 16.10.2021. At the time of filling up the application form in column under the head of ‘Disclosure’ containing the query ‘Do you have any criminal case pending against you in a Court of Law?’, the petitioner-respondent had mentioned ‘Yes’ and under column of details, he had mentioned ‘FOR STUDENTS POLITICAL ISSUES’. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in different stages of selection and on the basis of the recommendation of the Selection Committee dated 18.05.2022 and approval by the Executive Committee in its meeting dated 21.05.2022, he was selected on the post of Assistant Professor (PWBD-A (EWS) in the Department of Sanskrit, Pali, Prakrit and Oriental Languages of the University.
4. Consequently, the University had issued an appointment letter dated 21.05.2022 in favour of the petitioner on the terms and conditions mentioned therein. In pursuance thereof, the petitioner joined the said post and started working on probation of one year. Subsequently, vide notification dated 08.8.2023, the probation period of all newly appointed teachers was extended by one year in terms of Resolution of the Executive Council dated 20.06.2023. Thereafter, the meeting of the Executive Council of the University was held on 15.09.2023, wherein the Executive Council vide resolution No.06/78 dated 15.09.2023 had unanimously resolved to not extend the services of Dr.Vidhu Khare Das, Associate Professor, Centre of Theatre and Films and Dr. Raghvendra Mishra, Assistant Professor, Department of Sanskrit of the University (petitioner) and to terminate their contract of service under Clause 5 (a) of the Ordinance XLI, Conditions of Service of teachers of the University. For ready reference, Resolution No.06/78 of the Executive Council is reproduced hereinafter:-
Dr. Deepali Pant Joshi, nominee of the Hon’ble Chancellor in the Executive Council said that a teacher is a role model and it is good to nip any problem in the bud, for smooth functioning and future of the institution.”
5. Consequently, the Registrar of University vide order dated 15.09.2023 had dispensed with the
Daya Shankar Yadav vs. Union of India and others
Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha
Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan vs. Ram Ratan Yadav
Mathew P. Thomas vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. and Others
Muir Mills Unit of NTC (U.P.) Ltd. v. Swayam Prakash Srivastava and Another
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, 1958 SCR 828, AIR 1958 SC 36
Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr.
Rajasthan High Court vs. Ved Priya and 2 others
Rajasthan Rajya Vidyut Prasaran Nigam Limited and another v. Anil Kanwariya
Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand and Others
Satish Kumar Yadav v. Union of India
State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs. Abhijit Singh Pawar
State of Uttar Pradesh and another v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla
Termination of a probationer must follow prescribed procedures; failure to do so renders the termination illegal and potentially stigmatic.
Termination of a probationary teacher must follow due process and cannot be based on unverified allegations, as it may lead to stigmatization affecting future employment.
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
Probationary employees possess statutory protections and cannot be terminated without following prescribed procedures under the governing statute, which mandates documented grounds for unsuitability ....
Termination of a probationer does not require an inquiry unless it is punitive in nature; unsatisfactory performance alone does not constitute grounds for punitive action under Article 311(2).
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination based on the nature of the inquiry and the purpose of the termination.
Termination without due process violates natural justice; confirmed employees must be given an opportunity to present their case per established service rules.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.