DILIP KUMAR SAHA Vs. UNION OF INDIA & OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner on successful completion of interview comprising written, oral and physical test and after necessary training was appointed as Supervisor, Non technical Grade II at the establishment of the respondents on 25.6.85. The terms and conditions of the appointment besides other stipulates that the appointment was made on probation for the first two years of appointment and on completion of probation the competent authority will assess the suitability of the petitioner for continued appointment and pass appropriate orders either confirming the successful completion of probation or extending the probationary period for not more than one year at a time, provided that the aggregate period does not, save for exceptional reasons, exceed 4 years. It will be pertinent to mention herein that at the time of appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner could produce only the provisional certificate of B.A. as by the time the Calcutta University could not provide the original certificate. On completion of probationary period of 2 years as on 24.6.87 the petitioner's service was not confirmed but the probation period was extended by another 1 year up to 27.6.88 by the respondents by an order dated 31.8.87 (Annexure-3) on perusal of Annexure 3 order the only ground for extending the probationary period of petitioner's service of 1 year was due to non furnishing of the original Degree qualification Certificate by the petitioner within 2 years of probationary period. No other ground has been assigned in the annexure 3 order. By another order dated 19.9.88 (Annexure 9) the probationary period of the petitioner's service was further extended for a period of 1 year up to 24.6.89. The ground taken in Annexure 9 order said to be involvement of the petitioner in a disciplinary proceeding. It is however, averred in paragraph 17 of the writ petition that no disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. On the other hand, the proposed disciplinary proceeding against the petitioner for irregularities committed by the petitioner mentioned in Annexure 9 order was dropped. By an order dated 12.6.89 (Annexure-12) the service of the petitioner was discharged w.e.f. 25.6.89 on the ground that the petitioner is found unfit for continuance in service. The petitioner thereafter, made representation against the impugned order before the competent authority by its petition dated 18.6.89 which was disposed of by the authority by its order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-15). In paragraph 4 of the said order it reiterate the Annexure 12 order stating that the petitioner is unfit for continuance in service and rejected the representation. There is yet another order dated 23.6.89 (Annexure-14) served upon the petitioner stating that an oral inquiry to investigate the charge has been conducted by the authority on 21.6.89 and that the charge levelled against the petitioner has been proved and a penalty of CENSURE was imposed upon the petitioner. Hence this petition.

(2.) We have heard Mr. R.S. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner as well Mr. S.N. Chetia, learned C.G.S.C. for the respondents.

(3.) The submission of Mr. Bedi, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the impugned orders are passed with malafide. The further submission of Mr. Bedi was that although the impugned order speaks that the petitioner is unfit for continuance in service, the petitioner's service was actually discharged by way of punishment without holding proper inquiry. Therefore, the only question which arises for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of this case the respondents are justified to pass the impugned s. The order impugned runs as follows: