9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Non-communication of adverse remarks prior to the decision for termination. 2. Whether the termination of services was by way of punishment without complying with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. Detailed Analysis: 1. Non-communication of Adverse Remarks Prior to the Decision for Termination: The High Court allowed the writ petition on the ground that the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of Respondent 1 were communicated to him after the High Court had taken the decision on 19-6-1985 for termination of his services. The High Court held that the non-communication of these adverse remarks prior to the decision vitiated the termination order. The Supreme Court, however, held that since Respondent 1 was only a probationer, he had no right to hold the post, and it was not necessary to communicate the adverse remarks in his confidential reports. The Court emphasized that the status of a probationer, who has no right to hold the post, cannot be equated with that of a confirmed employee who has a right to hold the post. The Court stated that principles of natural justice do not apply in the case of termination of services of a probationer during the period of probation since he has no right to hold the post. The failure to communicate adverse remarks would not vitiate the order of termination. The Court cited precedents such as Union of India v. M. E. Reddy and Baikuntha Nath Das Chief Distt. Medical Officer to support this view. 2. Whether the Termination of Services was by Way of Punishment Without Complying with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India: The High Court also held that the termination of services of Respondent 1 was passed by way of punishment without complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court disagreed, noting that the decision to terminate Respondent 1's services was based on the overall assessment of his performance during the probation period and not on any specific act of misconduct. The Court referred to the service record of Respondent 1, which contained several adverse remarks, including poor outturn, below-average merit, questionable integrity, and undesirable conduct. The Court clarified that these remarks were used to assess Respondent 1's suitability for confirmation and retention in service, not as a basis for punishment for specific misconduct. The Court distinguished the present case from the precedent in Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India, where the termination was based on a specific act of misconduct. Conclusion: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the judgment of the High Court dated 22-10-1990, and dismissed the writ petition filed by Respondent 1. The Court held that the non-communication of adverse remarks did not vitiate the termination decision and that the termination was not by way of punishment for misconduct but was based on the overall assessment of Respondent 1's performance during the probation period. There was no order as to costs.
|
