Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) IN this proceeding, the petitioner has questioned the decision of the Visva Bharati University dated 23rd July 2012 issued by its Registrar by which the petitioner has been discharged from service as his appointment has not been confirmed following his period of probation. The reason for this, as disclosed in the said decision, is his general unsuitability for the post of conservation assistant, to which he was appointed on probation upon going through a regular selection process on 10th February 2011. This reason has been disclosed in the said communication addressed to the petitioner on 23rd July, 2012, discharging him from his service with effect from 10th August, 2012. The letter of appointment of the petitioner dated 10th February, 2011, stipulated, inter alia: The undersigned is directed to offer you the appointment to the post of Conservation Assistant, Visva -Bharati (OBC), with effect from the date you join the post, in the Pay Band -1 of Rs. 5,200 -20,200 with Grade Pay of Rs. 2800/ - plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules of the University. Your pay will be fixed as per rules of Government of India as applicable to the University. You will be on probation for a period of one year, which may be ex -tended if the authority so desires. Eligibility for confirmation to the post will rest on your satisfactory performance during the probation period. Subsequent to his appointment, a suit was instituted by one Sujoy Hazra questioning the validity of his appointment but that suit was subsequently dismissed. The said litigation, however, is not of much relevance to the present proceeding. Close to completion of his first year of appointment, probationary period of the petitioner was extended by six months with effect from 1st February, 2012. The petitioner sought information in writing the reason for extension of his period of probation and the petitioner was informed by the Registrar of the University that a case was pending against him on disciplinary ground and the said matter was at that point of time under investigation of the grievance committee. The allegation against the petitioner which was being enquired by the said committee was that he had threatened and mentally tortured one Mira Ruidas, a student of the university. It appears that an FIR was lodged at Shantiniketan Police Station in relation to that incident. A fact finding committee was constituted by the university, which had found the allegations against him to be false and baseless. Case of the petitioner is that the reason behind extension of his probation period without confirming his service was the pending enquiry or investigation on disciplinary ground and the subsequent act of discharge from his service even after he was exonerated by the fact finding committee constituted discharge with stigma. It has been argued by Mr. Dhar, learned counsel for the petitioner that the ground of un -suitability disclosed in the letter of discharge is to camouflage mala fide acts on the part of the university authorities and the petitioner ought to have been given the opportunity of hearing before he was discharged. According to him, the petitioner's performance at the time of recruitment was best among all the candidates and the performance appraisal or assessment of the petitioner while in service also showed him to be above average and he was given increment while in service. On this basis, he sought to establish that the petitioner's performance was satisfactory, contrary to the observation made in the letter of discharge. Main case of the petitioner is that his discharge was "stigmatic" and it was incumbent upon the authorities to give him opportunity of hearing before discharging him in compliance of the principles of natural justice.
(2.) IN connection with the said writ petition, the university had taken out an application for vacating the interim order which was originally granted on 6th August, 2012, staying the order dated 23rd July, 2012. This application has been registered as CAN 8088 of 2012. In this application, it has been disclosed that a committee had been set up to look into the academic activities of the petitioner since his appointment, and process of his appointment to the said post. The said committee recorded that the petitioner did not have any knowledge of chemistry as was stipulated in the advertisement inviting applications for the said post and he did not have experience or expertise in the field of conservation of museum objects. The university authorities also obtained information from the Adhyaksha, Rabindra Bhavana as to whether his performance as conservation assistant was satisfactory or not when he was functioning there and obtained a negative response. The other factor referred by the petitioner to sustain his case of mala fide is the enquiry conducted against him on the allegation of causing harassment to said Mira Ruidas. In relation to this proceeding, it has been pleaded in the writ petition that a fact -finding committee was constituted by the university and such committee found the allegations of said Mira Ruidas to be false. On a further complaint filed by said Mira Ruidas before the Ministry of Human Resource Development, Government of India as well as Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribes cell, a grievance committee was constituted, which conducted further enquiry. It has been submitted by the petitioner that the said Committee had not given their finding. The stand of the university however is that the grievance committee had reported that the behavior of the petitioner appeared to be serious and special attention was needed to curb such type of criminal activities. On these counts, submission of the petitioner is that he had fulfilled the eligibility criteria and chemistry as an academic subject was not an essential qualification for the said post. Mr. Dhar has further argued that the entire exercise of ascertaining information about the petitioner was carried out behind the back of the petitioner and reflected mala fide approach on the part of the university. Further point urged by the petitioner is that the Registrar of the university had no power to discharge the petitioner as under the statute such power is vested with the Vice -Chancellor or the executive council. On these grounds the petitioner has applied for invalidation of the letter of discharge. He has relied on judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., : 2003 (3) SCC 263, Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and another, 1 : 984 (2) SCC 369 and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI Medical Sciences and another, : 2002 (1) SCC 520 and invited this Court to lift the veil off the content of the letter of discharge and find out the real reason for terminating his service as a probationer, which according to him is mala fide and by way of punishment, without complying with the principles of natural justice. The judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of the Manager Government Branch Press and another v. D.B. Belliappa, 1979(1) 477, has also been relied upon by Mr. Dhar and he submitted that even for terminating the service of a probationer, principles of fairness and reasonableness were required to be adhered to by the employer. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioner that during the period of probation, he was given increment and this fact negated the stand of the respondents that the service of the petitioner was unsuitable or unsatisfactory. The authority relied on this point is a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Ajit Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, : 1983 (2) SCC 217. The other point argued on behalf of the petitioner is breach of clause 14 of the service rules, which is entitled Service Rules for non -academic employees of the Visva -Bharati, which provides for notice of one month in writing before the service of a probationer is effected.
(3.) ON behalf of the respondents main case has been argued by Mr. Arunava Ghosh, learned counsel for the university. It has been submitted by him that the executive council had approved discharge of service and non -confirmation of the petitioner and resolution to that effect was taken on 16th September, 2012. Earlier, though the impugned letter was issued by the Registrar, the Vice -Chancellor of the university had examined the recommendation of the Registrar and authorised him to discharge the petitioner from service. Thus, according to the respondents, the jurisdictional question in issuing the termination letter is no more open for examination. It has been further submitted that the petitioner's discharge was not on the allegation of any misconduct but it was a case of termination simpliciter on overall assessment of the performance of the petitioner and hence question of violation of the principles of natural justice cannot be urged. On the issue of grant of increment, contention of the university is that this was done bona fide and not to discriminate against the petitioner.;