NARPAT SINGH BHATI Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition the petitioner seeks to quash the order of the Rajasthan Civil Services Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur dated 11. 8. 78 Ex. 2 whereby the petitioner's services were terminated. The petitioner was given appointment temporarily as L. D. C. by the Superintendent of Police, Jaisalmer after his selection by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission vide order dated 4. 2. 75 Ex. 1 in pursuance of which he joined his duty on 12. 12. 75. The petitioner's services were terminated w. e. f. 13. 8. 78 as it was found that his work was not satisfactory during the period of probation. The petitioner was served with one month's notice before termination of his services. Notice Ex, 3 dated 11. 7. 78 was received by the petitioner on 13. 7. 78. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner before the Tribunal but the same was dismissed by the Tribunal and all his contentions were negatived.

(2.) MR. M. L. Kala, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of termination is bad in as much as it casts a stigma and when the order casts a stigma, it was essential to hold an enquiry. The order of termination therefore, is bad and to such an order provision of Art. 311 would be attracted. We are unable to agree with this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner. In this connection a Constitution Bench decision of the Supreme Court reported in State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das (1) is relevant wherein their lordships of the Supreme Court considered the order of discharge of a police officer on probation and held that in the case of a probationer observation like 'unsatisfactory work and conduct' would not amount to stigma. The order of termination of the petitioner does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. When the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory so his services were terminated. Per se such an observation in the order of termination, cannot be said to be an aspersion or stigma on the efficiency or otherwise of the petitioner and to such an order in our opinion Article 311 would not be attracted.