1997 (8) TMI 529 - SC - Companies Law

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Probation Period and Extension
2. Confirmation of Service
3. Termination of Service
4. Applicability of Rules and Constitutional Provisions

Detailed Analysis:

1. Probation Period and Extension:
The appellant was appointed as a Civil Judge, Class II, with an initial probation period of two years, which could be extended by another two years as per Rule 24 of the M.P. Judicial Services (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955. The appellant completed his training and probation period by May 22, 1988. However, he was placed under suspension on March 2, 1990, pending charges. The defense argued that the maximum probation period of four years had lapsed by May 22, 1990, and therefore, the appellant should be deemed confirmed.

2. Confirmation of Service:
The appellant contended that according to Rule 24, he should be deemed confirmed after the maximum probation period of four years, citing the judgment in State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh [1968]3SCR1. The Court examined various precedents, distinguishing between cases where rules provided for automatic confirmation and those where they did not. It was noted that the rule in question prescribed a maximum probation period, implying that the officer could not be considered a probationer beyond this period unless explicitly confirmed.

3. Termination of Service:
The appellant's services were terminated on November 8, 1993, with one month's salary in lieu of notice. The Court held that since the appellant was deemed confirmed after the maximum probation period, his termination without a departmental inquiry violated Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court referenced the Constitution Bench ruling in Dharam Singh's case, which held that termination after the maximum probation period without confirmation was invalid.

4. Applicability of Rules and Constitutional Provisions:
The respondents argued that the High Court's powers under Article 235 of the Constitution were not subject to the rules, citing Beena Tiwari v. State of M.P. The Court, however, found that the termination was invalid as the appellant must be deemed confirmed after the expiry of the maximum probation period. The Court also distinguished the case from Satya Narain Athya v. High Court of M.P., noting that the termination in that case was within the extended probation period, unlike the present case.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgments and the termination order. The appellant was deemed confirmed as of May 22, 1990, and was reinstated with all arrears of emoluments and consequential benefits. The respondents were permitted to hold a departmental inquiry if necessary. There was no order as to costs.