2005 (11) TMI 504 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the appellant's termination during the probation period.
2. Interpretation of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (Staff Regulations), 1979 regarding the probation period.
3. Whether the termination order was punitive in nature.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of the appellant's termination during the probation period:
The appellant was appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer on probation for one year, starting from 02.03.1986. The probation period was extended due to unsatisfactory performance. On 28.09.1988, the appellant's service was terminated as his performance did not improve despite several opportunities. The appellant raised an industrial dispute, which was decided against him by Labour Court No. III, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, and his subsequent writ petition was dismissed.

2. Interpretation of the Karnataka Handloom Development Corporation Limited (Staff Regulations), 1979 regarding the probation period:
The appellant's counsel relied on Clause (iii) of Regulation 18, which states that the probation period may be extended but not beyond two years. The appellant contended that he should be deemed confirmed after two years, i.e., on 19.02.1988, and thus his service could not be terminated without an enquiry. The respondent's counsel referred to Clause (vii) of Regulation 18, which states that if no order of confirmation or termination is issued at the end of the probationary period, the employee continues on probation until such an order is issued. The court agreed with the learned Single Judge that the case falls within the third category of cases described in the Supreme Court decision in *The High Court of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar* (AIR2001SC3234), where a specific act of confirmation is required even after the maximum probation period has expired.

3. Whether the termination order was punitive in nature:
The appellant argued that the termination order was punitive as it was preceded by a show cause notice. The court referred to *State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ram Bachan Tripathi* (2005)IIILLJ731SC), where it was held that mere mention of a show cause notice does not constitute a stigma. The court also cited several Supreme Court decisions, including *Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad Jalna* (AIR 2003 SCW 731) and *Municipal Committee, Sirsa v. Munishi Ram* (2005)ILLJ1077SC), which held that the mere fact of an inquiry or mention of suspension does not make the termination punitive. The court concluded that the termination order in this case was not punitive.

Conclusion:
The court found no merit in the appellant's submission that his service must be deemed confirmed after two years. It also held that the termination order was not punitive. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.