GUNAVANTI Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR UNIVERSITY OF HYDERABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has to succeed on the sole ground that although the order ostensibly is one of termination simpliciter, it is preceded by memo of charged in respect of which no proceedings have ever been drawn and no enquiry has been held. On piercing the veil, thus, it is found that the termination is not simpliciter as it purports to be, but it is penal and is visiting the petitioner appellant with civil consequences.

(2.) Facts in short giving rise to the instant appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent of the Court are as follows:- Petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Hindi Translator on 1-4-1989 and was put on probation for two years which was expired on 10-4-1991. Although, according to the petitioner appellant, she performed her duties satisfactorily, she had certain complaints' against her colleagues which were not heeded by the superiors and when some adverse remarks were made, she made representation for expunging them Her probation was, however, extended from 29-6-1991 to 31-5-1992. In the meanwhile, her services were terminated on 16-4-1992. The above was preceded by a memo dated 2-4-1992 stating that she was quarrelsome, non co-operative in performing her duties and was disobedient and was showing disrespect to the superiors and she was called upon to explain and improve her performance. According to the petitioner-appellant, when she furnished her explanation soon thereafter she received the order of termination from service. Respondents' case before the learned single Judge as well as before this Court, however, has been that the petitioner-appellant was not suitable for the job as her performance was unsatisfactory and that is why her robation was terminated and she, accordingly, was removed from service. Learned counsel for the respondents produced before the Court at the hearing of the writ petition a file relating to the petitioner-appellant. Learned single Judge has, from the materials available in the record, found as follows:-

(3.) We have, before us, some materials from which it is found that besides the work of Translator, for which the petitioner-appellant was engaged, she was asked to teach Hindi to her colleagues and other employees of the University and for the extra work for which she was engaged, she demanded extra remuneration. The University, however, maintained that no extra remuneration was required to be paid to her as Translator she had hardly any work to do. Be that as it may, since this case, in our view, has to be viewed on the basis of the above facts whether the termination, before the extended period of probation expires, of the service of the petitioner-appellant by the respondents is violative of the principles of natural justice and whether on the facts, as above, without affording the opportunity of being heard to the petitioner, any decision could be taken to remove her from service on the ground that she was holding a purely temporary appointment as the probationer, which appointment gave no right to her to hold the office and extended, accordingly, to her protections which any person substantively appointed enjoys. The Supreme Court has, in Anoop vs. Government of India, pointed out -