LAWS(KAR)-1981-7-36

LAKSHMAIAH Vs. K S R T C

Decided On July 03, 1981
LAKSHMAIAH Appellant
V/S
K.S.R.T.C. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It is the case of a former employee of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) who has moved this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution for an appropriate relief in respect of the termination of his services by an order dated 28-1-1980.

(2.) The facts leading to the petition may be briefly stated as follows:

(3.) The petitioner had joined the Bangalore Transport Service Division of the 1st respondent-Corporation in the year 1967. In 1970 his service came to be terminated on the ground of unauthorised absence. However, on his appel against the said order, the General Manager of the Corporation issued an order of re-appointment on 28-12 1971 Thereafter, by another order dated 18-11-1976 he was placed on probation tor a period of two years. The latter appointment fixed the probationary period as two years which lapsed on 18-11-1978. The petitioner was continued thereafter without the probation being extended in accordance with Clause (1) of Regulation 7 of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation Cadre and Recruitment Regulations, ,1968 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). As earlier stated by an order dated 28-1-1980 made by the Deputy General Manager, who is 2nd respondent herein, the petitioner's services were terminated on the ground that he was not found suitable for the job for which he was appointed on probation. The two grounds of attack made in this petition against the validity of the order passed at Ext.-A are: (1) That on the failure of the Corporation or the 2nd respondent to extend the period of probation in accordance with Clause (1) of Regulation 7 of the Regulations, the petitioner must be deemed to have been confirmed and therefore his removal could only be after due enquiry in accordance with the provisions made in Regulation 23 of the Regulation ; (2) That the impugned order is invalid on the ground that by stating that he is unsuitable for the job, a punishment is inflicted and a stigma attached to his name without an enquiry being held.