(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 13.8.96 (Annexure-4 to the petition) by which his service has been terminated.
(2.) The petitioner was appointed by order dated 29.8.88 (Annexure-1 to the petition) on probation in the service of the respondent. This order states that the petitioner will be on probation for two years. The petitioner joined on 9.9.88. In paragraph 3 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed after selection after advertisement of the post and facing a Selection Committee which recommended his appointment. The petitioner was suspended from 11.12.88 as stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition as he was involved in a criminal case, but after hts acquittal, the suspension order was revoked and he joined as Development Officer vide order dated 3.2.95 (Annexure-2 to the petition). However, the order dated 3.2.95 itself states that the revocation of the petitioner's suspension is without prejudice to the right of the Company to take action under the relevant Rules. By the impugned order, the petitioner's service has been terminated.
(3.) A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it stated in paragraph 3 that the petitioner was appointed as Development Officer Grade II on probation. In paragraph 4, it is stated that the petitioner was informed when he joined his duties on 17.2.96 after revocation of his suspension order that his period of probation will be one year now and he will have to complete his target of Rs. 5.25 lacs in one year for the purposes of confirmation. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was not automatically confirmed. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that the petitioner did not complete the quota of 5.25 lacs in one year. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that since the petitioner could not complete his target, his service was terminated as his work was not found satisfactory.