BRIGADIER CHAITANYA PRAKASH Vs. H OMKARAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT Appeal No. 3290 of 2004 is directed against the order dated 11. 8. 2004 of the learned Single Judge allowing W. P. No. 19169 of 1999 which was filed for a Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 29. 11. 1999 terminating the probationary services of the petitioner therein/respondent herein. Writ Appeal No. 9842 of 2000 is filed challenging the order passed in W. P. No. 9842/2000 dated 11. 8. 2004. (The parties shall be referred in the judgment in the same rank as they are arrayed in W. A. No. 3290/2004)

(2.) THE respondent in W. A. No. 3290 of 2004 was appointed on 3. 6. 98 as Executive Director (Marketing) and he had to undergo probation for a period of one year. The said period was extended on 30th September, 1999 for a period of 3 months on the ground that his performance was unsatisfactory. Thereafter, the matter was placed before the Board of Directors with the Personal Appraisal Report of the 1st appellant and the Board of Directors, after consideration of the overall performance of the respondent, on the basis of the Personal Appraisal Report, decided to dismiss the respondent from service for unsatisfactory performance and by order dated 29. 11. 1999, the respondent was terminated from service, which was the subject matter of challenge in the writ petition. The learned Single Judge, after going through the materials placed on record and after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel on either side, allowed W. P. No. 19169 of 1999 as against which, as already stated, W. A. No. 3290 of 2004 has been filed.

(3.) ACCORDING to the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, the finding of the learned Single Judge that the order of termination is stigmatic and as it was not preceded by any enquiry, it is liable to be set aside is not correct. The order of termination was issued after it was found that the performance of the respondent during his extended period of probation was found not to be satisfactory. The learned senior counsel submitted that Rule 3 of the HPF Service Rules contemplates termination of service on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation. Further, it is contended by the learned senior counsel that the decision to terminate the service of the respondent was taken by the Board of Directors of the appellant after assessing the performance during the period of probaion and the decision taken was uninfluenced by the remarks of the Managing Director of the Appellant Company. It is also submitted by the learned senior counsel that the order of termination is not punitive in nature. In support of his contentions, the learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments: (i)2006 (7) Supreme 159 (Om Prakash Mann V. Director of Education (Basic) and Others) wherein the Supreme Court observed as hereunder: