B. M. Lai, J. - (1.) ACCORDING to petitioner, while serving as Project Engineer in M/s. Engineering Projects (India) Ltd. (a Government of India Enterprise), he applied for the post of Chief Manager in U. P. Financial Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) in pursuance fo the advertisement made for the same. Ultimately he was selected and appointed on the post of Chief Manager in the pay scale of Rs. 1410-2175 with four advance increments of Rs . 60/- each plus other allowances as admissible to the officers of the Corporation in the above mentioned grade. His appointment was subject to the condition that he executes a bond in favour of the Corporation on Stamp paper of Rs. 43/- for serving the Corporation for minimum period of 5 years from the date of jointing his duties. He Was called upon to resign from previous service and bring relieving certificate from previous employer. The petitioner executed aforesaid bond and produced requisite documents and joined the services of Corporation. At the time of appointment petitioner's period of probation was fixed as one year from the date of joining the duties in the Corporation. The petitioner joined the services of Corporation on 10-2-1986. In addition to four advance increments given to the petitioner at the time of initial appointment, he was given two more increments. Thereafter petitioner's period of probation was extended from 10-3-1987 to 9-3-1988 and again from 10-3-88 to 9-3-19.89, in between vide order dated 4-2-1989, petitioner was discharged from the services of the Corporation with immediate effect.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner contended that admittedly, the petitioner was an officer of the Corporation and Regulatiou 15 of the U. P. Financial Corporation Staff Regulation 1961 (for short the Regulations) framed under section 43 of State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 (for short the Act); deals with the period of probation in the Corporation. Regulation 17 of the Regulations deals with the Managing Director's power to extend probationary period. These Regulations 15 and 17 read as under : REGULATION NO 15 : PERIOD OF PROBATION : (1) An officer directly recruited to the Corporation Service shall be required to be on probation for period which shall not be less than one year and more thin two years as may be fixed at the time of the appointment. (2) Employees, not included in sub-regulation (1) of this Regulation shall on their first appointment in the Corporation's service, be required to be on probation for six months." "REGULATION NO. 17. MANAGING DIRECTOR'S POWER TO EXTEND PROBATIONARY PERIOD: (1) The period of probation of an employee may be extended at the discretion of the Managing Director but in no case shall be total period of probation exceed three years. . (2) 'I he power to extened the period of probation of an officer shall be exercised by the Managing Director subject to the approval of the Board." Thus Regulation 15 (1) speaks for the officers, 15 (2) speaks for the employees other than officers, 17 (2) speaks for the officers and 17 (1) speaks for the employees. Accordingly in view of Regulation 15 (1) an officer's period of probation cannot be fixed less than one year and more than two years and the same cannot be extended beyond two years. At the time of appointment of an officer if it is fixed one year, it can be extended for another one year by the Managing Director subject to approval by the Board. A combined reading of Regulations 15 and 17 makes it manifest that for the purposes of probation staff of Corporation has been devided info two classes, one is of the officers and the other is of the employees other than officers. The minimum and maximum period of probation for officers has been provided under Regulation 15 (1) whereas minimum period of probation for employees other than officers has been provided under Regulation 15 (2) and maximum period of probation for employees other than officers has been provided under Regulation 17 (1) of the Regulations. Since maximum period of probation for officers has been provided in Regulation 15 (1) itself hence Regulation 17 (2) provies only for the authority by which the power of extending probationary period is to be exercised. Regulation 17 (1) provies that power to extend the period of probation in respect of employees other than officers, is to be exercised by the Managing Director exclusively whereas power to extend the period of probation in respect of officers is to be exercised by the Managing Director subject to approval by the Board. On this basis learned counsel for the petitioner contended that at the time of appointment, one year's period of probation was fixed for petitioner with effect from 10-2-1986 i.e. from the date of joining, which was satisfactorily completed by the petitioner on 9-3-1987 and this fact is not disputed that till 17-12-87 this period of probation was not extended neither by the Managing Director nor by the Board consequently after satisfactory completion of probationary period fixed for petitioner, he became confirmed automatically on 10-3-1987 and thereafter it was not open for the respondents to put the petitioner again on probation but the respondents erred in law by extending probationary period vide letter dated 18-12-87 after about 9 months from the date of deemed confirmation of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that under the Regulations there is no provision of express confirmation consequently in the eye of law there was no need of any such provision as well as any order extending period of probation by any authority, in view of satisfactory completion of probationary period petitioner was deemed to have become confirmed on 10-3-87. Moreover, there was no provision under the Regulations for putting a confirmed officer on probation bypassing any order having retrospective operation purporting to be an order extending the period of probation. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that subject to approval of the Board, Managing Director was empowered under Regulation 17 (2) to extend the period of petitioner's probation for a miximum period of two years but in the absence of any provision for express order of confirmation, it was obligatory on the part of Managing Director subject to approval of Board to have extended the period of probation before expiry of the period fixed earlier but the Managing Director failed in discharge the above obligations on its' part consequently after successful completion of one year's probationary period fixed at the time of appointment petitioner became confirmed in the eye of law, thereafter, it was not open for any authority of the Corporation to put the petitioner again on probation.
(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner further contended that if the petitioner was discharged from service on account of irregularities alleged to have been committed by him or having been found unsuitable for the service of the Corporation, then he was entitled to be given opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice which have not been followed in the instant case, consequently impugned order of termination is violative of principles of natural justice therefore, same is liable to be quashed. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on catena of decisions of this Court and apex Court but only some of them are being referred here. Ajit Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1983 SC 494, Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, AIR 1984 SC 636, Om Prakash Maurya v. U. P. Co-operative Sugar Factories Federation, Lucknow, AIR 1986 SC 1844, State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C. Bhargav, AIR 1987 SC 2135, and M. K. Agarwal v. Gurgaon Gramin Bank, AIR 1988 SC 286.;