Back
2025 Supreme(MP) 359
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Atul Sreedharan, Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, JJ.
Brijrani – Petitioner
Versus
District And Session Judge – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 18650 of 2025
Decided On : 19-06-2025
For the Petitioner:Shri Ahmad Shahid Hussain – Advocate
For the Respondent:Shri Abhijeet Awasthi – Deputy Advocate General
Discharge of probationary employee for unsatisfactory performance does not require an inquiry if not based on misconduct; confirmation depends on a specific order signifying satisfactory service.
Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 - Discharge from service during probation period - The court affirmed the discharge of the petitioner’s services on the grounds of unsatisfactory performance as documented in annual confidential reports - **Rule 8(4) and Rule 25(4)** - Probation may be terminated if not suitable, and confirmation requires a specific order. (Paras 10, 11, 14, 19)
(B) Natural Justice - The need for prior departmental inquiry is contingent on termination for misconduct, which was not applicable in this case - The court reaffirmed that since the petitioner was found unfit based on performance, no inquiry was obligatory. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as Stenographer Grade-II on probation via an appointment order and her probation was extended due to poor performance. Her services were terminated based on unsatisfactory conduct documented over five years. (Paras 1-3)
Findings of Court:
The petitioner’s discharge was deemed lawful as her performance warranted such action, and she was not entitled to a departmental inquiry due to lack of misconduct. (Paras 19-20)
Issues: The primary issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to be deemed permanent after two years and the necessity of a preliminary inquiry before termination of probationary services. (Paras 4, 9, 14)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that unsatisfactory performance justified termination without inquiry, affirming that rules govern the probation and confirmation process clearly outlining requirements, which were not met by the petitioner. (Paras 10, 14)
Result: The petition was dismissed.
ORDER :
Dinesh Kumar Paliwal, J.
This petition invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 15.07.2020 (Annexure P/1) whereby services of the petitioner have been discharged as she failed to perform her duties satisfactorily in the probation period and the Principal District Judge, Katni (M.P.) by impugned order has discharged her probationary services.
2. As per facts of the case, the petitioner was selected as Stenographer Grade-II and she was posted in the establishment of the Principal District & Sessions Judge of Katni on probation vide order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P/2) by District & Sessions Judge, Katni. She joined on 06.01.2015 vide Annexure P/3. Her probation period was extended for a year vide order dated 12.12.2019 (Annexure P/4) but her services in probation period were found unsatisfactory. Therefore, after assessing overall performance of the petitioner in probation period and finding that she is incompetent and is not fit for the post, discharged from services under Rule 8(5) of the Madhya Pradesh Civil Services (General Conditions of Services) Rules, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Rules of 1961’). She preferred a representation before High Court of M.P. but same was rejected on administrative side vide order dated 05.03.2025. She was informed about the same by District & Sessions Judge, Katni.
3. Being aggrieved with the order dated 15.07.2020, the petitioner has preferred this writ petition. The challenge is made by the petitioner mainly on the ground that her services have been terminated/discharged without conducting any preliminary and departmental enquiry and the impugned order is passed without following the principles of natural justice. It is also contended that the petitioner’s services have been terminated without giving one month’s advance notice, therefore, her termination/discharge being illegal is not sustainable.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that she had joined on 06.01.2015 and had completed her two years on 05.01.2017, therefore her services became permanent in nature. Her probation was extended only for a period of one year with retrospective effect and same was against the Rules. It is submitted that as soon as an employee completes his two years of probation, he automatically becomes permanent. Therefore, before terminating his services, charge sheet was required to be given and due enquiry was required to be conducted. On the aforesaid, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside.
5. Learned counsel for the State has submitted that the petitioner was appointed by order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P/2) but her services in probation period were not found satisfactory, therefore, her probation period was extended for one year. Petitioner’s work and conduct in almost about a period of five years of service was found unsatisfactory and she was found to be incompetent and unfit for service. Therefore, appointing authority has not committed any error in discharging/terminating her from services as she could not complete probation period successfully in spite of affording sufficient time.
6. We have heard learned counsel and perused the record.
7. The service profile of the petitioner in five years of her service career rendered during probation period was as follows :
8. One of the grounds raised by the petitioner in support of the challenge to the order of discharge is that as per Rule 8 of the Rules of 1961, after completion of two years of service by the petitioner in probation, her services should have been considered as permanent in nature and her services were not required to be discharged without conducting enquiry. On perusal of Rule 8, it is apparent that a person appointed to a service or post by direct recruitment shall ordinarily be placed on probation for such period as may be prescribed. On perusal of order dated 05.01.2015 (Annexure P/2), it
