9911796707
TMI Blog1996 (4) TMI 502X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re no longer required and that his services should be terminated. The said decision of the High Court was communicated to the State Government by letter dated 5-8-1985. A communication was also sent to the District Judge, Hazaribagh to withdraw all cases from the court of Respondent 1 and that he should not be given any judicial work. A communication dated 2-9-1985 was received from State Government whereby the State Government requested that the grounds for termination of the services of Respondent 1 may be furnished. The Standing Committee of the High Court in its meeting held on 4-12-1985 decided that the adverse materials in the service record of Respondent 1 should be communicated to the State Government and in pursuance of the said decision the said material was communicated to the State Government by letter dated 5-3-1986. It was also decided to communicate the said adverse material to Respondent 1 and in pursuance of the said decision, the adverse remarks in the service record of Respondent 1 were communicated to him by the District Judge, Hazaribagh. Thereafter, the order dated 29-8-1986 was passed whereby the services of Respondent 1 were terminated. It appears that Respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation on the post of Munsif and it could not be said that the decision of the High Court that Respondent 1 is not fit for confirmation is arbitrary or capricious. It has also been urged by the learned counsel that the order for termination of services is an order of discharge simpliciter which does not contain any stigma and the High Court was in error in holding that the said order was passed by way of punishment for misconduct ( 4. ) Shri Pramod Swarup, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent 1, has supported the judgment of the High Court and has urged that it was obligatory on the part of the High Court to have communicated the adverse remarks in the confidential reports of Respondent 1 and that the failure to do so invalidates the decision of the High Court regarding termination of services of Respondent 1. Shri Swarup has also submitted that the termination of services of Respondent 1 under the order dated 29-8-1986 is in substance an order of removal by way of punishment for misconduct. In this connection Shri Swarup has invited our attention to the letter dated 5-3-1986, from the Registrar of the High Court to the Commissioner and Secretary, Government of Bihar, De ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e equated with that of an employee who has been substantively appointed on a post and has a right to hold that post. An order terminating the services of a probationer can be questioned only if it is shown that it has been passed arbitrarily or has been passed by way of punishment without complying with the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since a probationer has no right to hold the post on which he has been appointed on probation, he cannot claim a right to be heard before an order terminating his services is passed. The obligation to communicate the adverse material to a person before taking action against him on the basis of the said material is a facet of the principles a of natural justice. But principles of natural justice have no application in the case of termination of the services of a probationer during the period of probation since he has no right to hold the post. It is, therefore, not possible to hold that there is an obligation to communicate the adverse material to a probationer before a decision is taken on the basis of the said material that he is not fit for being retained in service. Such material can be relied upon to show that such a decisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... provision similar to Rule 55-B in the rules governing the post of Munsif on which Respondent 1 had been appointed on probation, he cannot seek any assistance from the said decision of this Court ( 6. ) We are, therefore, unable to hold that the failure to communicate some of the adverse remarks to Respondent 1 prior to 19-6-1985 vitiates the decision taken by the High Court on 19-6-1985 that Respondent 1 was not fit for confirmation on the post of Munsif and that his services should be terminated In support of the other reason given by the High Court that the order terminating the services of Respondent 1 was passed by way of punishment, Shri Swarup has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Anoop Jaiswal v. Govt. of India. We have carefully perused the said decision. It has no application to the facts of the present case. In that case this Court, after considering the relevant material, came to the conclusion that the real foundation for the action which was taken against the employee was the alleged act of misconduct in having instigated other trainees in not coming to P. T. in time on 22-6-1981. It was held that since the said act of misconduct was the foundation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
