Decided on April 04,1967

GEORGE V K Appellant
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


- (1.) THE question is whether the petitioner who was appointed as a probationer in the Indian Police Service by Ex. P. 1 order dated 20 February 1964 was discharged from service by Ex. R. 1 order (R. 1 produced along with the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent 1, the Government of India) dated 31 January 1966 or whether he has been punished in the manner stated in Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) AFTER the petitioner was appointed as a probationer with effect from 10 January 1964, he apparently continued as a probationer till the order Ex. R. 1 referred to was passed by the President of India and communicated to the petitioner. According to the petitioner what has been done is not merely to terminate the probation of the petitioner but for extraneous reasons to terminate his services in the Indian Police Service amounting to dismissal from service.
(3.) IT has not been disputed before me by counsel on behalf of the petitioner, who stated his case I think most fairly, without detracting from the emphasis that is required in matters such as this, that the mere discharge of a probationer is not justiciable and invited my attention to a passage in the judgment in Ranendra Chandra Banerjee v. Union of India and Anr. 1963 S. C. 1552 reading as follows: Further it is equally well-settled that a Government servant who is on probation can be discharged and such discharge would not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Article 311 (2) and would not attract the protection of that article where the services of a probationer are terminated in accordance with the rules and not by way of punishment. A probationer has no right to the post held by him and under the terms of his appointment he is liable to be discharged at any time during the period of his probation subject to the rules governing such cases.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.