KURUMURTHY Vs. MINISTRY OF POWER GOVERNMENT OF INDIA REP BY ITS SECRETARY SANSKRUTHI BHAVAN NEW DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER was a probationer appointed in the second respondent organization, Central Power Research Institute, under the control of the fourth respondent, by proceedings dated 22.06.2009 as Engineering Officer Grade. II. After expiry of his probation period of two years, he was issued order of termination dated 26.08.2011 impugned herein. The said order is questioned on the ground that no enquiry was conducted and the fact that the petitioner continued beyond the probation period for 54 days amounts to petitioner having been confirmed and therefore, the discharge simplicitor as per the impugned order is not sustainable.

(2.) BEFORE approaching this Court, the petitioner herein filed O.A.No.891 of 2011 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Hyderabad where initially the tribunal granted stay against the order of termination but later after the respondents filed counter raising the plea of jurisdiction of the tribunal, the petitioner withdrew the said OA on 22.11.2011 and filed the present writ petition on 22.11.2011. Petitioner questions the said order of discharge on the ground that it is a punitive action without holding any enquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner and as such, is not sustainable.

(3.) COUNTER affidavit is followed by a reply affidavit and additional affidavit on behalf of the petitioner wherein the petitioner reiterates that he was never served with written remarks or memo with regard to his working during the entire two years period of probation and thereafter, he was allowed to work for 54 days over and above the two years period of probation. He also submitted that after withdrawal of the OA on the ground of jurisdiction on 22.11.2011 and before the certified copy thereof was available, the respondents removed the petitioner from service on 22.11.2011 and as such, when this Court passed the interim order on 23.11.2011, the petitioner was highhandedly removed by the respondents one day earlier. In the additional affidavit, the petitioner has, further, stated that the respondents have not paid the remaining amount except the salary up to 22.11.2011 and according to the petitioner, the other amounts relating to EL, pension account kit etc would show that the petitioner is entitled to a further sum of Rs.1,70,000/- and odd. Petitioner, therefore, states that neither there is any relieving letter nor termination order on 22.11.2011 and as such, claims that the account will remains unsettled and petitioner has to receive balance amounts from the respondents.