M.Y.EQBAL, J. - (1.) IN the instant writ petition the petitioner Central Institute of Psychiatry has prayed for quashing the order dated 23.6.2008 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit bench at Ranchi in Original Application No. 201/2006, whereby the order dated 25.2.2006 and 25.8.2006 terminating the services of the respondent were set aside and further the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service.
(2.) THE facts of the case lie in a narrow compass. The respondent (writ petitioner) was appointed by the petitioner as Ward Attendant on temporary basis, vide office memorandum dated 21.8.2002. The service of the respondent was on probation for a period of two years subject to extension at the discretion of the competent authority. While working as a ward attendant, many complaints and allegations including disobedience, gross negligence of duty and unauthorized absence were made against the respondent. After preliminary enquiry made by a committee of the petitioner in each complaint and allegation, the respondent was given opportunity of explanation. After enquiry the responded was warned or censored after examination of the matter and he was made aware of his shortcomings in his conduct and performance by series of memorandums served upon the respondent. It further appears that the probation period of the respondent was extended for a period of one year, vide office order dated 25.1.2005 as per the terms and conditions of the letter of appointment. The respondent challenged the said order of extension dated 25.1.2005 before the competent authority, who find the extension of one year justified. Dissatisfied with the said order, the petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal (In short the Tribunal) being O.A. No. 148/2005. The Tribunal disposed of the application with a direction to the petitioner to furnish the reasons and shortcomings in the service of the respondent and on receipt of the explanation, the authority of the petitioner will consider the withdrawal of the order of extension of probation. The petitioner, thereafter, served memorandum informing him for the shortcomings in his conduct and performance. During the period of probation, after holding preliminary enquiry on the complaints of his unauthorized absence from the place of duty, gross negligence of duty insubordination, misconduct etc., the respondent was warned or censored and even increment was stopped for one year. Finally the competent authority examined the entire service record and performance of the respondent during the probation period and finally found him not fit to the post of ward attendant and recommended termination of his service. Accordingly, the service of the respondent was terminated vide office order dated 25.2.2006. The said order of termination was again challenged before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Circuit Bench at Ranchi being O.A. No. 201/2006. Subsequently, by filing application, the respondent also challenged the order dated 25.8.2006 passed by the appellate authority. The Tribunal formulated a question as to whether the order of termination is stigmatic order or not. The Tribunal held that since the termination of services of the respondent was based on some allegations and complaints without issuing show cause notice and without conducting any enquiry, the impugned order of termination is not a termination simplicitor, rather it is a stigmatic and punitive in nature. Accordingly, the order of termination was set aside and the petitioner was directed to reinstate the respondent in service. The order passed by the Tribunal is impugned in this application.
(3.) MR . A. Allam, learned Counsel appealing for the petitioner -Institute assailed the impugned order of Tribunal as being illegal and wholly without jurisdiction. Learned Counsel submitted that admittedly the respondent was appointed temporarily on probation for a period of two years, which was extended for a further period of one year. During the period of probation several allegations and complaints were made which were time to time enquired and the orders of censor, warning and even withdrawal of increment were passed. Even thereafter the respondent did not reform himself and his performance remained unsatisfactory throughout. The petitioner -employer, therefore, decided to terminate the services of the respondent. Hence the order of termination is simplicitor and not punitive. Learned Counsel put reliance on the decision in the case of State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh 2005 AIR SCW 3477 and in the case of State of Punjab v. Balbir Singh 2004 AIR SCW 5248.;