SUNILKUMAR S P SINHA Vs. INDIAN OIL CORPORATION LIMITED

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners in both these petitions were employed by the Indian Oil Corporation Limited (hereafter referred to as the Corporation) as Senior Clerks with effect from 7-10-1978. They were appointed on probation for a period of six months from the date they took charge. It is their case that during the said period of six months they had rendered satisfactory service; and therefore on the expiry of that period they had become confirmed employees of the Corporation as no order extending the period of their probation was passed by it. The petitioners were also treated by the Corporation as permanent employees and on that basis they were given Indane Gas connections at their residence and were also advanced loans for the purpose of purchasing motor vehicles. Sharanand Jha petitioner in Special Civil Application No. 1889 of 1980 was also promoted for some time as an Office Assistant (Stores) on 7-5-1979. Both the petitioners were called for an interview held for the purpose of promotion to the higher post of Office Assistants in September 1979 The petitioners then came to know that they were likely to be removed from service; and therefore they filed civil suits in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Jamnagar for a declaration that it was open to the respondent Corporation and its officers to terminate their services without following due procedure of law. Ultimately in those proceedings a statement was made on behalf of the Corporation that they would not be removed from service except in accordance with law and without following due procedure and complying with the terms of the contract of employment Both the petitioners were thereafter served with show cause notices dated 5-10-1979 alleging that the certificates regarding experience submitted by them were false and that they had actually not worked in the establishments which had issued those certificates for the requisite period. Both the petitioners were called upon to submit their explanations in writing in that behalf. Both of them replied to the said show cause notices; but the second respondent by his order dated 13-6-1980 terminated their services. Those orders of termination are challenged by the petitioners in these petitions.

(2.) As the facts in both the petitions are similar and the conten tions raised are the same they are disposed of together by this common judgment.

(3.) First contention raised on behalf of the petitioners was that the probation period of The petitioners having expired on 6-4-1979 the petitioners must be deemed to have been confirmed in the posts which they held with effect from 6-10-1978. In the alternative it was contended that even if the petitioners can be said to have continued in the employment thereafter on probation as no specific order of confirmation was passed even in that case they should be treated as having been confirmed on expiry of the period of 12 months as the is the maximum period for which an employee of the Corporation can be employed on probation. On this basis it was further urged that the respondents had no power to terminate their services under clause 9 of the offer of appointment. It was also urged that the petitioners having become confirmed employees their services could not have been terminated in that manner and without holding a regular formal inquiry. First part of the submission cannot be accepted as the law on this point is now well settled. As pointed out by the Supreme Court in STATE OF MAHARASHTRA V. V. R. SABOJI. A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 42 there is no automatic confirmation on the expiry of the probationary period. on the expiry of the said period and on fulfilment of the requirements of the relevant rules a Government Servant becomes eligible for being confirmed. The ordinary and normal rule is that without an express order of confirmation the Government servant will not be then to have been confirmed in the post to which he was appointed temporarily and or on probation. An officer cannot be deemed to have been confirmed in service merely because after completion of probationary period he was appointed in officiating capacity. In this case it is not in dispute that no orders confirming the petitioners were passed by the Corporation after expiry of the initial probationary period. It is also not disputed that the Rules do not provide for such automatic confirmation. The petitioners were regarded as probationers till their services came to be terminated