MADIVALAPPA B. CHEBBI, S/O BASAVANTAPPA CHEBBI Vs. THE GENERAL MANAGER PERSONNEL CELL, STAFF WELFARE DIVISION HEAD OFFICE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner was appointed as clerk in the respondent Bank under the quota reserved for physically handicapped person. An appointment letter was issued on 17.11.2007. The appointment was subject to completion of probationary period of six months from the date of joining, with provision to extend by a further period of 3 months depending upon performance and further condition that during the period of probation, the petitioner shall show proper attitude towards work, acquire thorough knowledge of Bank's Manual of Instructions, Circulars, Rules of Business, Policies, Procedures/System of Working etc., of the Bank, besides acquiring knowledge of computer operations and be able to discharge the duties and responsibilities of a workman with due diligence. The petitioner submits that he performed his duties with utmost diligence and dedication. However, notice has been issued on 13.03.2008 alleging that Bank had received some complaint from Head Master H P S, Mukibham stating that their salary cheques were sent for collection by Deshnur Branch but not returned till 12.3.2008. On inspection it was found that OBCs. and CDDS were kept pending in the tray since several days. The petitioner had made reply on 05.04.2008 disowning the allegations made in the notice. Further he has stated that he has been unnecessarily harassed by the Bank on false allegations. The probationary period of six months was extended by another three months and thereafter on 29.8.2008, he has been retrenched from service.

(2.) Hence he approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, at Bengaluru in C R No. 29/2009 and the Tribunal by its order dated 26.12.2013 rejected the reference holding that termination of the petitioner by the Management is legal and justified and he is not entitled to any relief. This order of the Tribunal is impugned in the present writ petition seeking to quash the order and to direct to treat the period from 30.8.2008 till date as duty.

(3.) The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the impugned order passed by the Tribunal is erroneous. The retrenchment order during the probationary period is stigmatized order. To fortify the same, the learned counsel referred the show cause notice issued for dereliction in performing the duties dated 13.03.2008 in which it is alleged about the complaint received from the Head Master, unattended OBCs. and CDDS and inconvenience caused to the customers etc., This show cause notice has been answered as per Annexure-D dated 5.4.2008 submitting that there was harassment by the Bank. Further reply was made on 04.04.2008 personally, but it was rejected. Thereafter it was sent by R P A D, which is not disputed. The Tribunal has not gone into the question as to whether the order is stigmatized or a simpliciter. To substantiate the same, the learned counsel referred the judgment of this Court reported in ILR 2014 KAR 1044 (Sri Sidagouda N Patil v. The Union of India) , by its Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, New Delhi and others) and submits that when there is a stigmatized order, it requires an enquiry after giving opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel submitted that discharging a probationer is also a retrenchment as per the judgment reported in 1994(4) KLJ 55 where it has been held, discharging a probationer during probationary period is also retrenchment, in which event, there shall be compliance of Section 25-F of the ID Act. The learned counsel for the petitioner also placed reliance on judgment reported in (2015) AIR SCW 869 (Jasner Singh v. State of Haryana) to contend that when workman has worked for 240 days, there shall be compliance of Section 25-F of the I D Act.