- (1.) PETITIONER was a probationer appointed in the second respondent organization, Central Power Research Institute, under the control of the fourth respondent, by proceedings dated 22.06.2009 as Engineering Officer Grade II. After expiry of his probation period of two years, he was issued order of termination dated 26.08.2011 impugned herein. The said order is questioned on the ground that no enquiry was conducted and the fact that the petitioner continued beyond the probation period for 54 days amounts to petitioner having been confirmed and therefore, the discharge simplicitor as per the impugned order is not sustainable.
(2.) BEFORE approaching this Court, the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.891 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad where initially the tribunal granted stay against the order of termination but later after the respondents filed counter raising the plea of jurisdiction of the tribunal, the petitioner withdrew the said OA on 22.11.2011 and filed the present writ petition on 22.11.2011. Petitioner questions the said order of discharge on the ground that it is a punitive action without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and as such, is not sustainable. By order dated 23.11.2011, while issuing notice before admission, this Court granted interim stay. Hence, the respondents have now filed a counter affidavit together with an application to vacate the stay, being WVMP.No.60 of 2012. It is stated in the counter affidavit that petitioner's appointment is governed by the terms and conditions mentioned therein, which includes that the petitioner will be on probation for a period of two years extendable by a further terms not exceeding one year. However, the working of the petitioner was not found satisfactory and as he was found to be unsuitable for the job, the competent authority decided to discharge the petitioner. Thus, and the order impugned cannot be equated to termination of a permanent employee and as such, there is no infirmity. The counter affidavit is annexed with a copy of the order of appointment together with the conditions as well as the proceedings relating to review of petitioner's work and assessment for suitability of his retention in service on completion of probation. The assessment report is also produced where the overall performance of the petitioner is rated as poor and as against the recommendation for suitability, it is recommended termination of service by the remarks of the Joint Director, who, inter alia, stated that regardless of best efforts usefulness of the officer is neither satisfactory nor improving. Hence, it is recommended to terminate him from service. Counter affidavit is also annexed with settlement of salaries and amounts payable to the petitioner, which has been paid for the period from 01.11.2011 to 21.11.2011 considering the period of stay, which was in force in O.A.No.891 of 2011 for a brief period.
(3.) COUNTER affidavit is followed by a reply affidavit and additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner reiterates that he was never served with written remarks or memo with regard to his working during the entire two years period of probation and thereafter, he was allowed to work for 54 days over and above the two years period of probation. He also submitted that after withdrawal of the OA on the ground of jurisdiction on 22.11.2011 and before the certified copy thereof was available, the respondents removed the petitioner from service on 22.11.2011 and as such, when this Court passed the interim order on 23.11.2011, the petitioner was highhandedly removed by the respondents one day earlier. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has, further, stated that the respondents have not paid the remaining amount except the salary up to 22.11.2011 and according to the petitioner, the other amounts relating to EL, pension account kit etc would show that the petitioner is entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,70,000/- and odd. Petitioner, therefore, states that neither there is any relieving letter nor termination order on 22.11.2011 and as such, claims that the account will remains unsettled and petitioner has to receive balance amounts from the respondents. Both the learned counsel have cited number of decisions. Learned counsel of the petitioner placed reliance upon a decision of the Delhi High Court in Dr. N.G. KULKARNI v. UNION OF INDIA (2000 (2) SLR 49);a decision of the Supreme Court in THE STATE OF PUNJAB v. DHARAM SINGH (AIR 1968 SC 1210) and an unreported judgment of this Court in M. DAVID SAM ROY v. HYDERABAD PUBLIC SCHOOL SOCIETY [WP.No.20141 of 2008 dated 28.09.2011]. On the basis of the above decisions, it is contended that the order of termination after the expiry of the probation period amounts to dismissal of a confirmed employee without enquiry and as such, is not sustainable.;