M NATHANIEL Vs. NEW INDIA ASSURANCE CO LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is filed for a declaration declaring that the petitioner had been confirmed as a Regular Development Officer Grade I with effect from 29-10-1987 and for Writ of Certiorari to quash the order dated 17th September, 1993 and the order dated 25th February, 1994 confirming the order dated 17th September, 1993 by the 2nd Respondent and for consequential benefits.

(2.) The petitioner was appointed as a Probationery Development Officer on 6-10-1986. On 29-10-1986, he joined duty on a consolidated pay of Rs.500/- per month and on 29-10-1987 he successfully completed 12 months of probationery period. On 29-10-1988 he continued in service for more than 12 months. On 28-11-1988 he made a representation seeking confirmation of services. On 25-4-1989 he filed a writ petition No.6110 of 1989 before this Court for a writ of Mandamus declaring that he is holding the post of Development Officer Grade-I (Inspector Grade-I) from 29-10-1987 i.e., from the date of completion of probation period of 12 months. On 26-4-1989 the writ petition was admitted and an interim order was also issued directing the respondents to continue the petitioner in service. On 25-5-1989 a charge sheet was issued and on 30-12-1991 an Enquiry Officer was appointed. And on 26-12-1990 enquiry was conducted and on 31-3-1991 Enquiry Officer submitted his report. On 29-5-1991 the disciplinary Authority accepted the report of the Enquiry Officer and dismissed the petitioner from service. In January 1991 the petitioner filed Writ Petition No.9142 of 1991 challenging the order of dismissal. On 19-2-1992 this Court disposed of the earlier Writ Petition No.6110 of 1989 and Writ Petition Np.9142 of 1991 by a common judgment directing the petitioner to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Authority. On 28-3-1992 petitioner preferred an appeal pursuant to the directions issued by this Court. On 4-10-1992 and on 20-10-1992 the petitioner issued notices to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal. In January 1993 petitioner filed Writ Petition No.428 of 1993 seeking direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal. Writ Petition No.428 of 1993 was disposed of with a direction to the Appellate Authority to dispose of the appeal within two months from the date of the judgment dated 20-1-1993. Contempt Case No.219 of 1993 was filed against the Appellate Authority as they did not comply with the orders of this Honourable High Court. However, earlier orders of termination were revoked by issuing Revocation-cum-Second show cause notice to the petitioner. On 8-6-1993 the petitioner joined duty pursuant to the revocation order. The petitioner filed Writ Petition No.12745 of 1993 for payment of arrears of salary etc. On 17-9-1993 the respondents passed an order dismissing the petitioner from services. Writ Petition No.12745 of 1993 was disposed of on 25-4-1994 directing the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority for necessary relief. On 2-11-1993 against the order of dismissal petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority who confirmed the order of dismissal on 22-4-1994 which was received by the petitioner on 6-5-1994. Against which the present writ petition is filed.

(3.) The main argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that he was appointed on 16-10-1986 and according to the appointment order the period of probation is 12 months and the said period of probation can be extended by a further period of 12 months. He has completed the probation on 1997 (2) FR-F-37 29-10-1987 and no order extending probation was passed. Therefore, he is deemed to have been confirmed. When once he is deemed to have been confirmed, the respondents cannot terminate his services. The second contention of the petitioner is that the charges framed are not proved. The third contention of the petitioner is that Appellate Authority passed order without giving any reasons. Lastly the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the nature of the offence.