- (1.) The petitioner was appointed as Chief Engineer, Co-operative Sugar Mills in terms of letter dated 27.7.1998 (Annexure P-1) by the Punjab State Federation of Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd. ('Sugarfed' - for short) (respondent No. 1). In terms of Clause 4 of the appointment letter he was to be on probation for a period of one year from the date of joining which may be extended for a further period as prescribed under the Punjab State Cooperative Sugar Mills (Common Cadre) Service Rules, 1981 ('Rules' for short), which governed his service conditions. The petitioner joined the service of Sugarfed on 16.12.1998 and his one year probation period expired on 15.12.1999. The same was, however, extended by six months vide order dated 31.12.1999 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner has submitted that he had completed the probation period of one year on 15.12.1999 and as it was not extended by the said date, therefore, it is deemed to have been successfully completed. The Sugarfed, however, vide letter dated 24.2.2000 (Annexure P-4) issued a show- cause notice to the petitioner on the basis of a preliminary inquiry conducted in pursuance of directions issued by the Managing Director, Sugarfed on 28.12.1999 (Annexure P-2). In terms of the directions, the Managing Director, Sugarfed had ordered its Technical Adviser (ST) to conduct a thorough preliminary inquiry with regard to letter dated 20.12.1999 received from the Managing Director of the Zira Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., Zira. The same was with respect to breakdown of the Sugar Mill during the crushing season. The petitioner submitted his reply dated 9.3.2000 (Annexure P-5) to the show cause notice dated 24.2.2000 (Annexure P-4). The Sugarfed thereafter by the impugned order dated 31.5.2000 (Annexure P-6) during the extended period of probation of the petitioner terminated his services in terms of Clause 5 of his appointment letter dated 27.7.1998 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner aggrieved against the said order preferred an appeal (Annexure P-7). The Chairman, Sugarfed on behalf of the Board of Directors, Sugarfed by order dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure P-9) allowed his appeal. It was held that by treating the petitioner on probation his services could not have been terminated without resorting to a preliminary inquiry, show cause notice and reply thereto, during his probation which expired on 15.12.1999 as the breakdown in the Sugar Mill took place from 10.12.1999 to 22.12.1999. Besides, the probation period of the petitioner could not have been extended for another six months upto 31.5.2000 and then terminating his service on 31.5.2000. Accordingly, the petitioner was ordered to be brought to his original position which he was occupying before his termination from service. Till the inquiry was completed it was ordered that the petitioner be placed under suspension and after completion of inquiry and its finding the Sugarfed may go ahead according to its Service Rules. The Sugarfed aggrieved against the order of the Board of Directors of Sugarfed preferred a revision petition under Section 69 of the Punjab Cooperative Societies Act, 1961 before the Additional Registrar (Administration), exercising the powers of the Registrar, who vide order dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P-12) accepted the petition and set aside the order dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure P-9) of the Board of Directors of the Sugarfed. The petitioner by way of the present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeks quashing of the order dated 31.5.2000 (Annexure P-6) whereby he was terminated from service and the order dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P-12) whereby the appeal of Sugarfed against the order of the Board of Directors of Sugarfed dated 20.9.2002 (Annexure P-9) has been accepted.
(2.) Reply has been filed on behalf of the Sugarfed. It is submitted that the services of the petitioner have been terminated during the probation period as per condition No. 5 of his appointment letter (Annexure P-1). There is no illegality in the order of termination and the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The probation period of the petitioner, it is submitted, could be extended in terms of Clause 4 of his appointment letter (Annexure P-1). The order terminating the services, it is submitted, does not show that it is stigmatic. The conduct of preliminary inquiry was only to ascertain the actual position and it in no way caused any prejudice to the petitioner. Such an inquiry is permissible and there is no illegality in resorting to the holding of a preliminary inquiry. The order passed by the Additional Registrar, Cooperative Societies, exercising the powers of Registrar, has been stated to be valid. Therefore, it is submitted that the writ petition merits dismissal.
(3.) XXX XXX XXX.;