SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner was appointed as officer in the respondent bank by an order dated 20. 2. 1985 (Annex. 1) on probation for a period of two years. However, he actually joined the services on 11. 3. 1986. During one year of probation his performance was not found satisfactory by the Bank. He was found to be habituated of remaining absent on important occasions like annual closing accounts also, so much so that he remained absent for nine days without salary. Thus, it was felt by the bank that the petitioner had no interest in the bank services. Still, the bank considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically keeping in mind his young age and remaining period of service. It was decided to curtail the period of remaining one year of probation and his probation period was extended for three months by an order dated 7. 3. 86 (Annex. 6 ). THE petitioner was advised to improve his performance during that period. That extended period of probation came to an end on 6. 6. 1986. Somehow or the other, his services were continued till 17. 9. 1986. On that day i. e. on 17. 9. 1986 (Annex. 10) the bank terminated the services of the petitioner by giving him three months notice on the ground that it was not in the interest of the bank to continue his services any more. This has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioner vehemently submitted that having extended the period of three months of probation the respondent bank could not have terminated the services of the petitioner before expiry of it. According to him, three months period was extended from 19. 2. 1987 as his earlier probation was for a period of two years. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon un-reported judgment of this Court (Hon'ble J. C. Verma,j.) delivered on 13th August, 1997 in writ petition No. 1595/87 (1) wherein, reliance was placed upon the two Supreme Court Judgments (i) (The Management of the Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. Madurai vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai & Anr. (2) and (ii) State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh Khosla In Baldev Singh Khosla's case (supra), the petitioner was promoted on probation and lateron reverted after his probation period was extended and the matter was reman- ded to the authorities for re-consideration by the Apex Court by observing that any decision in that regard should have been taken only after considering his performance for the extended period. In case of Express Newspaper (Supra) the Apex Court held that : "an employee appointed on probation for six months continues as a probationer even after the period of six months if at the end of the period his services had either not been terminated or he is confirmed. Without anything more an appointment on probation for six months gives the employer no right to terminate the service of an employee before six months had expired - except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case even the services of a permanent employee could be terminated. At the end of the six months period the employer can either confirm him or terminate his services, because his service is found unsatisfactory. If no action is taken by the employer either by way of confirmation or way of termination, the employee continues to be in services as a probationer. There cannot be automatic termination of services of the employee after the expiry of the period of six months. " The facts of present case are totally different. As stated earlier, the period of probation of the petitioner was curtailed from two years to three months by subsequent order dated 17. 3. 1986 in view of the unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner without extending his period of probation after the expiry of that period of three months. The petitioner continued after the period of three months but un- fortunately he did not improve his performance, therefore, by the impugned order dated 17. 9. 1986 the services of the petitioner were terminated as the bank felt that to continue him would not be in the interest of bank. Thus, the aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court as well as of learned Single Judge of this Court will have no application to the facts of this case. In case of Samsher Singh vs. State of Punjab & Anr. (4), the Constitutional bench of the Apex Court has clearly held that no abstract proposition can be laid down as before a probationer is confirmed the authority concerned is under an obligation to consider whether the work of the probationer is satisfactory or whether he is suitable for the post. The contention of learned counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioner that the impugned order of termination at Annex. 10 cast stigma, therefore, it is in violation of Article 211 (2) of the Constitution of India has also no substance. In Samsher Singh's (supra), the Apex Court has clearly held that :- "in the absence of any rules governing a probationer in this respect the authority may come to the conclusion that on account of inade- quacy for the job or for any temperament or other object not involving moral turpitude the probationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must be discharged. Thus, in such cases no punishment is involved. " The Apex Court further held that : "the authority may in some cases be of the view that the conduct of the probationer may result in dismissal or removal on an inquiry. But, in those cases the authority may not hold an inquiry and may simply discharge the probationer with a view to giving him a chance to make good in other walls of life without a stigma at the time of termination of probation. "
(3.) THE Apex Court further held that the fact of holding an inquiry is not always conclusive. What is decisive is whether the order is really by way of punishment or not ? THE Court has to see the substance of the order and the form. In case of State of U. P. vs. Ram Chandra (5), the Apex Court clearly held that when there is no express words in the impugned order itself which throw a stigma on the Government servant, the Court would not delve into Secretariat files to discover whether some kind of stigma could be inferred on such research. In my opinion, if the employer had lost confidence in his employee, who was on probation, found him unsuitable to continue on the post then the employer can certainly terminate the services of such person in his own interest. By the impugned order of termination (Annex. 10) the Bank has clearly stated that after considering the performance of the petitioner for about one year and six months it was satisfied that it was not in its interest to continue him in service any more, therefore, his services were terminated. Thus, such order would not cast any stigma and would not amount to an order of punishment. It is an order of termination simplicitor. ;