- (1.) IN the instant writ application has questioned the order dated June 2, 1998, Annexure 'B ', whereby the period of probation of the petitioner was extended by another 6 (six) months from date of completion of one year of probation. For sake of convenience the impugned order (Annexure 'B ') is extracted hereunder; "The period of Probation in respect of Shri Susanta Mondal, Messenger presently working in C.R. Section of Regional Officer is hereby extended for a further period of six months from the date of completion of one year of his service in the Corporation since his integrity is doubtful and needs investigation for further course of action. ''
(2.) PETITIONER has also questioned the order dated June 30, 1998 being Annexure 'C ' whereby the petitioner was discharged from service. The said order (Annexure 'C ') reads as under; "ORDER Shri Susanta Mondal who was appointed as Peon/Messenger in terms of Regional Office Order No. Estt. 1 (627) Cat. IV/97 dated 22 -4 -97 and new posted to the Officer of the Sr. Regional Manager, Food Corporation of India, Calcutta is hereby discharged from the service of the Corporation with immediate effect in terms of Regulation -15(3) of the Food Corporation of India (StafI) Regulations, 1971 (as amended). The Demand Draft bearing No. 381555 on SBI Service Br., Cal, dated 30 -6 -1988 for an amount of Rs. 4167/ - (Rupees four thousand one hundred sixty seven only) as one month 's pay in lieu of notice of 30 days as' per Regulation is enclosed. '' It is the case of the petitioner and urged before Court by his learned Advocate Mr. A. Mazumdar appearing along with Mr. M. L. Mukhopadhyay and Mr. D. Das that the petitioner having successfully completed the probation for one year the question of extending the same by 6 (six) months and thereafter discharging the petitionee from service is not valid in law. The service of the petitioner it is contended ought to have been confirmed on expiry of one year period of probation.
(3.) IN the affidavit - in - opposition on behalf of respondents 1 to 9 and 11 it is stated that the FCI Staff Regulations, 1971 prescribed the procedure for recruitment scale of pay and other qualifications for each post, under FCI. For filling up the post of Messenger in FCI an advertisement was published. The educational qualification prescribed for the said post is 'middle standard pass '. Petitioner was one such applicant who applied for the said post pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure 'A'). The petitioner was interviewed and was given appointment to the post of Peon. In the application submitted by the petitioner (Annexure 'B '), petitioner declared his educational qualification in the prescribed application form as 'appeared the Madhyamik Examination ' a xerox copy of such application filed by the petitioner is Annexure 'B' to the affidavit -in -opposition. It is, therefore, the case of the respondents that the appointment was given to the petitioner on the declaration of the petitioner that 'he has not passed the Madhyamik standard ' and he was kept on probation initially for a period of one year in terms of the Regulation. In the usual course of practice police verification was made on the basis of the documents furnished by the petitioner at the time of joining in the service of the corporation and upon verification it was informed by the police authorities that the writ petitioner has passed the Madhyamik Examination from the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education as a student in the year 1992. Copy of the police verification report has been annexed to the affidavit -in -opposition and marked Annexure 'C '. According to the respondents, as petitioner suppressed his actual qualification in terms of Regulation 15(3) of the FCI Staff Regulations, petitioner was discharged from service within the probationary period by paying him a sum of Rs. 4167/ - at the time of his said discharge as one month pay in lieu of notice of 30 days in accordance with the said Regulations. It is the further case of the respondents that upon police verification it was found that the petitioner has passed Madhyamik Examination and therefore as the integrity of the petitioner became doubtful, the respondent authorities extended the probationary period for further investigation. As the petitioner got the appointment by suppression of his true educational qualifications willfully so that he can apply for the post, the authorities of the FCI discharged the writ petitioner from service.;