Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 17559
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Honourable Mr Justice MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
Prasath Lenin Devakar – Appellant
Versus
The Union of India – Respondent
Probationary employees can be terminated without notice if they do not fulfill performance requirements, as per the governing service rules.
Headnote:
Termination - Service Rights - Life Insurance Corporation Rules - Sections not explicitly applicable - Court interpreted the probation non-renewal provisions and termination without notice as valid under service rules.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Development officer, challenged their termination after failing to successfully complete the probation period and without notice. The main issue was whether notice was required before termination during probation.
Finding of the Court:
The court found no merit in the petitioner's claim as they had failed to demonstrate completion of probation and the rules permitted termination without notice. The termination was held valid due to non-fulfillment of business requirements.
Issues: Whether the petitioner was entitled to notice prior to termination during the probation period.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under the service rules, a probationer can be discharged without notice, and the petitioner did not complete the probation period successfully.
Final Decision: The writ petition is dismissed, maintaining the termination of the petitioner.
ORDER
The present writ petition is filed challenging the order dated
16.12.2014 and also the validity of Rule 8 of Life Insurance Corporation India Development Officers (Revision of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules 2009 as unconstitutional and ultravires and direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioner in service with all monetary and service benefits.
2. At the outset, it was submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that he does not press the challenge to the validity of Rule 8 of Life Insurance Corporation India Development Officers (Revision of certain terms and conditions of service) Rules 2009 .
3. It was submitted that the petitioner was appointed to the post of Development officer in the second respondent Corporation in the State of Tamil Nadu after the petitioner had cleared the written examination sometime in February 2013. The petitioner had joined service on
30.11.2013 and was terminated on 16.12.2014.
4. It was submitted by both the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the respondents that the only question that arises in the writ petition is as to whether the petitioner even before the declaration of probation would have any right to insist that he ought to be put on notice before the termination. Importantly, the other petitioners in similar matters were appointed on the very same date and also terminated on the very same date i.e., 1 year and 16 days after the initial appointment. It is not brought to the notice of this Court any document that would indicate that the petitioner has successfully completed his probation.
5. The learned Senior counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner services can be terminated during the probation without notice or assigning reasons. The clause on probation is relevant and is extracted hereunder:
“2.Probationary Period:
You shall be on probation initially for a period of twelve months from the date of your joining duties as a probationer, but the Corporation may, in its sole discretion, extend your probationary period, provided that the total probationary period including the extended probationary period shall not exceed 24 months counted from the commencement of the probationary appointment. During the probationary period (which 105 includes extended probationary period, if applicable) you shall be liable to be discharged from the services of the Corporation without any notice and without any cause being assigned.”
6. On a reading of the above clause, it would be clear that probation would initially for a period of twelve months which could be extended by further period of twelve months. Importantly, during the period of probation, it is left to the discretion of the Corporation to discharge the probationer without any notice without any cause being assigned. That being the case, the petitioner having failed to demonstrate that they have successfully completed the probation, I find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that non-issuance of notice would vitiate the order of termination.
7. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner's service was terminated as he failed to meet minimum business requirement. Thereby, he has failed to fulfill the parameters, thus the petitioner's service as Probationary Development Officer was terminated. The relevant portion of the termination proceeding is extracted hereunder:
“This has reference to clause 10 and 11, dealing with 'Minimum Business' and 'Confirmation and Increments' respectively of the order Ref: Mktg/PDO dated 30.11.2013 vide which you were offered Appointment as Probationary Development Officer of the Corporation commencing from 01.12.2013. As the scheduled Probationary period is ending on 30.11.2014 and as per clause 11 which deals with 'Confirmation and Increments' stating unambiguously that your Confirmation in the services of the corporation in the Class II cadre shall, apart from adhering to all the conditi
