M.Y.Eqbal, J. - (1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A.No. 451 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application and held that the order dated 25.3.1997 issued by the respondents removing the petitioner from service needs no interference.
(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : Petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer in Indian Lac Research Institute with effect from 16.12.1992 by office memo dated 10.9.92. Initially, the petitioner was kept on probation for a period of two years from the date of his joining on the post. As per terms of the appointment, period of probation may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. It appears that after the expiry of two years of probationary period some adverse remarks were communicated in the year 1995 which, after accepting detailed representation, were expunged vide order dated 7.8.1996. In 1996, petitioner was asked to show-cause for his alleged mis-behaviour with the sub-ordinates and for financial irregularities. In March, 1996 vide Office Order dated 30.3.96, the probationary period of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year ie. upto 14.12.95. By Office Order dated 25.7.96 petitioner was transferred and posted as Administrative Officer in the National Research Centre, Gujarat. Simultaneously, vide Order dated 9.4.96, an Inquiry Committee was constituted for conducting impartial inquiry on the allegation levelled against the petitioner. However, without waiting the result of the inquiry, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee( D.P.C.) who recommended for his discharge from service. Hence, order of discharge was passed by the respondents vide order dated 25.3.97. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing aforementioned O.A.No. 451 of 1997, which was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.
(3.) The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years, which was subsequently extended but since the appointment was on temporary basis on probation, failure to complete the period of probation satisfactorily would render the applicant liable to be discharged from service. His services could be terminated by the concerned appointing authority during the period of probation without any show cause notice. The Tribunal held as under: "13. It may be pointed out that confirmation in service is made only once at the entry grade. An officer, who has successfully completed the probation, is considered for confirmation. Specific order of confirmation is issued when it is clear from all angles. In the instant case, the applicant was directed recruit in the grade of A Administrative Officer. He was required to undergo probationary training for specified period. He was to be confirmed only after satisfactory completion of the probationary period. However, in the instant case, we find that the applicant failed to complete the probationary period satisfactorily. His performance report along with ACR were considered by the duly constituted DPC, on whose recommendation, his services were terminated. The applicant has assailed the impugned order of termination on the ground that he was not given show cause notice prior to termination of ' his services and, as such, the principle of natural justice has been violated. It may be pointed out at this stage that the matter related to a probationer officer, who was yet to be confirmed in service. It is different from the employees/officers who have already been confirmed in service. For such persons, there is a specific provision under law to proceed in the matter of termination of services by adopting prescribed procedure, which includes the provision for issue of a show cause notice, etc. However, in the case of a probationer officer, there is no such specific provisions. It is guided by the terms and conditions of the appointment. In the instant case, the appointment letter dated 10th September 1992 (Annexure--1) had made it clear that failure to complete the period of probation satisfactorily will render the applicant liable to be discharged from service. During the period of probation, the appointing authority can terminate the services of the applicant without notice and without the payment of salary in lieu thereof. 14. We have perused the proceedings of the relevant DPC held on 16.2.1996, 28.6.1996, 6.11.1996 and 14.2.1997 and find that the case of the applicant has been considered in the meetings of the DPC from time to time. In the meeting of DPC held on 16.2.1996, it was recommended that the probation period of the applicant be extended upto 14.12.1995. The case of the applicant was again considered for confirmation in the grade of A.O. by DPC in its meeting held on 6.11.1996 and it was decided that special and upto date report on the performance of 3 Administrative Officers mentioned therein, including the applicant, be obtained and placed before the next DPC for adjudging their fitness/ suitability or otherwise for the purpose of ' clearance of probation period. It appears that along with special report , ACR etc., the matter was again placed before the DPC in its meeting held on 14.2.1997. It was noted that the applicant had been given opportunities to work under different officers from time to time but it was observed that in spite of this and extension of his probation on recommendation of earlier DPC, the officer has not made any improvement. On due consideration of the ACR records, special performance report, etc., the DPC did not find Shantanu Mazumdar AO (applicant) fit for completion of his probation even upon his completing the period doubled than the normal probation period prescribed. It was observed that no further extension beyond four years in his case can be given under rules. Therefore, DPC recommended for his discharge from the service which was accepted by the competent authority and the applicant was discharged from service vide impugned order dated 25.3.1997 (Annexure--10). 15. The above facts of the case show that the case of the applicant had been considered in detail with reference to his ACRs as well as special performance report by a duly constituted DPC which recommended for his discharge from the service. It may be pointed out that a DPC has been given specific role under the rules. It is an expert body and its recommendations have to be given due weightage unless it can be proved that the recommendation of DPC have been made with mala fide intention or the same are against any provision of law. In the instant case, we do not find any such things.;