RANBIR SINGH SAINI Vs. UNION OF INDIA (UOI) AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through this petition the Petitioner has challenged the order dated April 6, 1994 (Annexure -PF) whereby his services have been terminated by Respondent -3.

(2.) The Petitioner has stated that he was appointed on probation for a period of one year by appointment order dated April 10, 1992 (Annexure -PA). The probation period was extended for one year vide letter dated April 24, 1993 (Annexure -PB). It has also been stated that his period of probation was extended since Respondent -3 wanted to adjust his own man against this assignment. In order to achieve this object, he recorded certain remarks against the Petitioner desiring improvement in the performance of his duties. These remarks are contained in the order extending the probation period of the Petitioner (Annexure -PB). Thereafter, show cause notice was also issued to him explaining why the Petitioner was not signing the Attendance Register regularly and by scheduled time and that on January 22, 1994, the Petitioner again failed to sign the Attendance Register till the end of the closing hours. He was administered warning also vide order dated January 25, 1994 (Annexure -PD). Consequently, his services were terminated by order of April 6, 1994 (Annexure -PF). According to the Petitioner, this order is mala fide, arbitrary, capricious and unconstitutional. Before terminating the services of the Petitioner, no enquiry was held, therefore, the order is by way of punishment and is liable to be set aside.

(3.) The Respondents have filed reply -affidavit in this case. It has been stated, inter alia, that the Petitioner was employed as Hostel Superintendent on probation for a period of one year which was extendable upto two years at the discretion of Respondent -3. The Petitioner was afforded opportunity to demonstrate his suitability to the post held by him. That is why, he was asked to improve his work and conduct so that he could come up to the standard expected from a Hostel Superintendent. Since there was no improvement during the first period of probation, it was extended by one year. It was desired that the Petitioner should make improvement in the performance of his duties. The Petitioner did not improve, therefore, his services were terminated. It has been denied that the Petitioner was thrown out for accommodating some -one known to the Principal -Respondent -3.