ARUNKUMAR M. MEHTA Vs. STALE OF GUJARAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondents in this case have not controverted the averment in the petition that the petitioner was never communicated any adverse remarks nor was he ever intimated about any defects in his work or conduct. It was contended that, this being so, the termination of the services of the petitioner, even assuming that he was a probationer, was bad. This contention also requires to be upheld in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Mrs. Sumati P. Shere v. Union of India and Ors .(A.l.R. 1989 SC 1431). In this case, the Supreme Court has laid down :-

(2.) As seen earlier, the last order, by which the petitioner's probation period was purported to have been extended (Annexure E), was passed on the 1st April 1986 and thereby the probation period was said to have been extended upto the 2nd October 1986. The impugned termination order came to be passed on the 29th October 1986 and, therefore, there was clearly a gap of about 27 days from 2nd October 1986 to the 29th October 1986, there was no order either confirming the petitioner or extending his probation period till the 29th October 1986. In these facts, it was urged on behalf of the petitioner that the termination order was bad on this ground also, as the petitioner could bot have been treated as being on probation on the 29th October 1986. In support of his argument, Mr. Desai cited the decision in the case of Mohanlal v. The Management of M/s. Bharat Electronics Ltd.(A.I.R. 1981 S.C. 1253) wherein the appellant before the Supreme Court was appointed by an order dated 8th December 1973 on probation for a period of six months and subsequently the period was extended upto 8th September 1974. His services were terminated with effect from the 19th October 1974. It was held by the Labour Court that services of the appellant were terminated during the extended period of probation for his unsatisfactory work. However, the Supreme Court held that the appellant was not on probation during the period from 8th September 1974 to 19th October 1974, but he was either temporary or permanent and, therefore, the finding of the Labour Court was wrong. Following this decision of the Supreme Court, we hold in the present case also that the termination of the services of the petitioner by the order dated 29th October 1986 was bad and illegal.

(3.) To recapitulate, therefore, the conclusion arrived at by us, in the facts and circumstances of this case, is that the period of two years mentioned in Rule 4 of the Rules was the maximum period of probation for the petitioner and, therefore, the termination of his serices, treating him as a probationer on the 29th October 1986, is bad and illegal; that, even otherwise also, for the reasons stated above, the termination order is bad and liable to be set aside. Rule made absolute.