JAGANNATH DNYANOBA PARKHE Vs. AIR INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THERE is no merit whatsoever in this petitioner filed under Article 226 of the Constitution to challenge the order of termination dated August 20, 1979 passed by respondents terminating the probation period of the petitioner. The order of termination was confirmed by the Appellate Authority. The petition is filed ten years after the impugned order was passed.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed on June 28, 1978 as Junior Technical Officer. The appointment was on probation for a duration of one year. During the probation period, it was noticed that the work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory. The petitioner could not express himself either orally or in writing and did not bother to think about the problems due to lack of knowledge. The relations of the petitioner with the other employees also required improvement. As the work of the petitioner was not found satisfactory, the probation period was extended. During the extended period, it was noticed on a surprise check that seven out of thirteen coaches had got upholstery in torn and detached condition. The petitioner was required to attend to the coaches and the petitioners was guilty of lapses in performing his duty. The shortcomings of the petitioner were repeatedly brought to the attention of the petitioner but the petitioner did not improve. Ultimately, on August 20, 1979 the petitioner was informed that the management had decided to determine probation in terms of clause 5 of paragraph 1 their letter dated April 17, 1978. The representation of the petitioner was turned down by letter dated October 18, 1979. The letter recites that the work of the petitioner was unsatisfactory during the probation period and the petitioner was also involved in misconduct on June 23, 1979.

(3.) THE petitioner produced letters alleged to have been signed by two Ministers of Civil Aviation recommending that the petitioner, who belongs to the Scheduled Caste, should be reinstated in service. The respondents found that the letters were bogus and fabricated and thereupon the petitioner was prosecuted. The petitioner approached this Court by filing the present petition on December 22, 1989. Shri Grover, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, raised two contentions in support of the relief sought in the petition. The first contention is that the termination during the extended period of probation was not termination simpliciter but was as a penalty for the alleged misconduct on the part of the petitioner. It was urged that it was incumbent upon the respondents to hold a departmental enquiry for the alleged misconduct before issuing order of termination. There is no merit whatsoever in this contention. The facts set out hereinabove clearly reflect that the work of the petitioner was entirely unsatisfactory and inspite of repeated warnings, the petitioner refused to show any improvement. The claim of Shri Grover that the petitioner was removed from service in view of misconduct, is not correct. The petitioner was guilty of lapses in not maintaining the coaches properly and the mere fact that the expression 'misconduct' is used by Deputy Managing Director while turning down the representation against the order of termination cannot lead to the conclusion that the order of termination of probation period was as a penalty. In our judgment, on the material available on record, no fault can be found with the respondents for terminating the services of the petitioner during the extended period of probation.