The termination of a probationer's services is punitive and stigmatic if it is founded on specific allegations of misconduct, rendering it invalid if the employer failed to conduct a proper disciplinary enquiry or disregarded evidence like positive performance reports and the quashing of criminal charges.

NAMIT KUMAR, J.

1. The petitioner has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of certiorari for quashing the order dated 17.11.2020 (Annexure P-14), whereby services of the petitioner have been terminated. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought for directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with effect from 17.11.2020 and grant him the benefit of continuity in service, with all consequential benefits.

2. Brief facts of the case, as have been pleaded in the petition, are that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant District Attorney (ADA) vide appointment letter dated 22.09.2014 on probation for a period of two years and he joined as such on 23.12.2014 and thereafter he was posted at Gurdaspur.

One Ms. Pardeep Kaur had committed suicide at her residence on 06.11.2016 and FIR No.273/2016 dated 07.11.2016 under Section 306 IPC was registered at Police Station Cheharta, District Amritsar, against the petitioner on the complaint of Smt. Surinder Kaur, mother of late Ms. Pardeep Kaur, alleging abetment to suicide against the petitioner. Thereafter, the said complainant made a complaint dated 22.11.2016 to respondent No.1, alleging therein abetment to suicide against the petitioner and informed the department that FIR No.273/2016 has been registered against the petitioner. In pursuance to the said complaint, respondent placed the petitioner under suspension vide order dated 28.11.2016 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner was granted anticipatory bail by this Court vide order dated 18.05.2017 (Annexure P-2), passed in CRM-M-42652 of 2016. Thereafter, he was issued chargesheet dated 27.04.2017 by respondent No.1, proposing disciplinary action under Rule 8 of the Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970 and for imposition of one of the punishments prescribed under sub clauses (iv) to (ix) of Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules. In the chargesheet also, the same allegation was levelled with regard to abetment to suicide of late Ms. Pardeep kaur. The petitioner in his reply to the chargesheet categorically stated that articles of charges framed in the chargesheet and the allegations in FIR No.273/2016, pending against the petitioner are identical, based on similar set of facts and the evidence, therefore, the disciplinary proceedings be stayed till the final outcome of the criminal case. However, the said request was not accepted and vide order dated 31.08.2017, respondent No.1 appointed Sh. R.C. Nayyar, IAS (retd) as enquiry officer and Sh. Malkit Singh, Superintendent, Prosecution and Litigation, as the presenting officer. The petitioner requested the enquiry officer to provide him the official record/documents pertaining to the mobile phone recording, mobile phone details and other documents relied upon by the respondents, however, without paying any heed to the said request, the enquiry officer on the very first date of enquiry i.e. 26.09.2017 examined all the prosecution witnesses and recorded the prosecution evidence and further directed the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses on the same day. Since the enquiry officer was conducting the proceedings with undue haste and without providing a fair opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, the petitioner vide his application dated 28.09.2017, requested respondent No.1 to change the enquiry officer. The said request was accepted and vide order dated 24.10.2017, Sh. S.S. Dhillon, IAS (retd.) was appointed as enquiry officer and Smt. Harjit Rani, Assistant Superintendent as presenting o