RAJPUT KANAIYALAL BABULAL Vs. CHAIRMAN I O C

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Letters Patent Appeal is filed against the order and judgment of the learned Single Judge passed in Special Civil Application No. 2051 of 1992 on 2nd November 1993 whereby the petition challenging the termination order dated 21st October 1991 was dismissed.

(2.) It is the case of appellant-original-petitioner that the appellant was called for interview for the post of General Handyman, Grade-III by the respondents on 19th March 1991 and since the appellant was found successful he was sent for medical examination and thereafter the appointment letter was issued to the appellant and after completing all formalities the appellant was allowed to resume on 29.4.1991. The appellant-petitioner was appointed on probation for a period of six months from the date of his appointment. During this probation period the petitioner's services were terminated by an order dated 21st October 1991. The grievance of the appellant was that no reason was assigned while terminating the services of the appellant. The appellant had challenged the said order of termination before the appellate authority and since there was no reply from the appellate authority in response to the said appeal, the appellant filed Special Civil Application No. 2051 of 1992 before this Court. In the said petition, an affidavit-in-reply was filed by the respondent from which the appellant has contended that the petitioner's termination was not a simple termination but it was penal in nature and casts stigma against the petitioner. No procedure was followed by the respondent authority nor any show cause notice was issued and hence the said order is in violation of the principles of natural justice and also contrary to the binding decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this Court.

(3.) The learned Single Judge of this Court, after having dealt with the rival contentions and submissions of learned advocates appearing for their respective parties had come to the conclusion that under the terms and conditions of the appointment, the respondents were entitled to put an end to the services of the appellant, without notice and without assigning any reason during the probationary period. On realising the challenge, the respondents have resorted to that entitlement and have terminated the services of the petitioner. The said order of termination therefore could not be said to be suffering from the violation of principles of natural justice nor could it be said to be arbitrary. The learned Single Judge had further observed in his order that the appellant's entry in the services of the respondent was not an entry in the regular channel and such an entry could only be put an end to without holding an inquiry against him or without giving any notice to him. The order of termination was therefore held to be illegal and valid. It is this order of the learned Single Judge, which is under challenge before us in this Letters Patent Appeal.