Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. - (1.) VIDE order dated 04.08.2010 passed by the District & Sessions Judge, Ambala (Annexure P -5), the petitioner was offered appointment to the post of Sweeper. In terms of such appointment letter, the petitioner was to be on probation for a period of two years, which could be extended by one year without assigning any reason. Still further, express condition contained in the appointment letter was to the effect that if his work and conduct is not found satisfactory, then his services would be liable to be terminated at any time during the probation period. The services of the petitioner were dispensed with during the probation period in terms of order dated 10.05.2011 at Annexure P -6. The petitioner filed a service appeal, which was considered by this Court on the administrative side and even such service appeal has been dismissed vide order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure P -9).
(2.) THE present writ petition has been filed impugning the order dated 10.05.2011 (Annexure P -6) as also the order dated 19.09.2012 (Annexure P -9) dismissing his service appeal. Counsel for the petitioner would vehemently argue that the impugned order dated 10.05.2011 (annexure P -6) does not spell out any reasons and does not disclose the basis upon which the decision has been taken to dispense with the services of the petitioner. In support of such contention, learned counsel for the petitioner would place reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishnadevaraya Education Trust and another Vs. L.A. Balakrishna, : AIR 2001 SC 625. That apart, counsel would also refer to yet another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in The Management of the Express Newspapers (Private) Ltd. Madurai Vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai and another, : AIR 1964 SC 806 to contend that even during the period of probation, it was open for the respondent -authorities to dispense with the services only if a ground of misconduct was made out against the petitioner or for any other sufficient reason.
(3.) COUNSEL for the petitioner has been heard at length.;