SURESH CHAND JAIN Vs. DIRECTOR GENERAL AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the challenge is to order dated 07.09.2011 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the 'CAT'), whereby the learned Tribunal has dismissed O.A. No. 935 of 2011 preferred by the petitioner. In the said O.A., the petitioner had challenged the order dated 2.4.2009 and 8.2.2011, respectively, whereby his services were terminated during the period of probation.

(2.) We may at the outset, set out the relevant facts before we advert to the controversy in detail. The petitioner had joined National Institute of Fashion Technology (NIFT) Head Office, New Delhi as a Junior Assistant on contract basis on 10.01.1999 at a consolidated pay of Rs.5,000/- per month for a period of five years. After completion of five years service, the petitioner was appointed in the same department as Junior Assistant (Grade C) on 19.5.2004 in the pay scale of Rs. 3050-75- 3950-80-4590 for a period of three years. Before the completion of the three years period, the petitioner was again appointed as a Research Assistant (Grade B) on 5.12.2005 on a higher pay scale of Rs. 5500-175- 9000, for a period of three years. The petitioner was appointed against the regular post of Research Assistant in the pay scale of Rs.5500-175-9000, purely on temporary basis w.e.f. 15.2.2008 and was posted at NIFT, Head Office on the recommendations made by Selection Committee and with the approval of DG, NIFT. In terms of the appointment letter dated 15.2.2008, the petitioner was to remain on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 15.2.2008 forenoon and this period could be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority. The services of the petitioner were terminated during the period of his probation by the impugned order dated 2.4.2009. The said termination order was challenged by the petitioner by filing O.A. No. 1059/2010 wherein the learned Tribunal directed respondent No. 1 to consider the representation made by the petitioner, against the termination order, and to pass a speaking order to that effect. Respondent No. 1 decided the representation filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order on 8.2.2011. Pursuant to this, petitioner filed fresh O.A. being OA No. 935 of 2011, to challenge the termination order dated 02.04.2009 and the speaking order dated 8.2.2011, respectively, passed by the respondents. The learned Tribunal on appreciation of the controversy found no fault with the decision of the respondents in terminating the services of the petitioner due to his unsatisfactory performance during his probation period. Placing reliance on the ratio of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned Tribunal held that there has to be some cause on the basis of which the services of an employee on probation are terminated and if the termination is only due to unsatisfactory performance then the question of abiding by the principal of natural justice would not arise. The learned Tribunal also found that the order of termination is not stigmatic rather it is termination simpliciter on the basis of unsatisfactory performance of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the learned Tribunal, the petitioner has filed the instant petition.

(3.) Mr. A.K Bahera, the learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the termination of the petitioner has been labelled as "simpliciter termination" but in fact the same is punitive in nature and foundation of the same can be traced from the speaking order dated 8th February 2011 passed by the respondent. Counsel further submitted that the petitioner had worked very efficiently and with complete devotion on each and every duty assigned to him during his tenure of ten years and never gave any cause or any sort of complaint to any of his seniors either with regard to his official duties or personal behaviour. Counsel also submitted that no memo, warning or any advisory note was ever issued against the petitioner pointing out any inability or incompetency on his part, in due discharge of his duties and in fact he was always appreciated and admired due to his discipline and devotion in every job entrusted to him. Counsel also submitted that no complaint was ever made by any student against the petitioner for late forwarding of assignments or lack of coordination or follows ups with the faculty.