LAWS(MPH)-2006-5-57

UNION OF INDIA Vs. BALWAN SAUDA

Decided On May 04, 2006
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) Appellant
V/S
BALWAN SAUDA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 13th October, 2001 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O. A. No. 806/2003.

(2.) THE facts briefly arc that the respondent was appointed as Safaiwala in Military Hospital, Sagar and was posted at Jabalpur on probation for a period of two years by order dated 28. 4. 1999. Thereafter, by order dated 17th August, 2002, the period of probation of the respondent was extended upto 10. 11. 2002. The petitioner was served with a show cause notice dated 29. 4. 2003 to show cause as to why his services will not be terminated for remaining absence for one day on 12. 9. 2002, for one day on 26. 9. 2002, for one day on 29. 0. 2002, for two days from 3. 10. 2002 to -1. 1o. 2o02, for two days from 2. 12. 2002 to 3. 12. 2002, for three days from 17. 12. 2002 to 19. 12. 2002, for two days from 2. 1. 2003 to 3. 1. 2003, for six days from 5. 3. 2003 to 10. 3. 2003 and for 36 clays from 11. 3. 2003 to 15. 4. 2003. Then his services were terminated by order dated 8th May, 2003. Aggrieved, the respondent filed the aforesaid OA No. 80g/2003 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench and by the impugned order dated 13. 10. 2004 the Tribunal held that the order of termination was stigmatic as it was mentioned therein that the respondent did not perform his duties satisfactorily and in view of his frequent absence without leave his services are terminated, The Tribunal further held that before terminating the services of the respondent the proper procedure for conducting a departmental enquiry should have followed and since this was not done, the Tribunal quashed the order of termination and directed reinstatement of the respondent and payment of back wages from the date of termination till the date of his reinstatement.

(3.) MR. S. A. Dharmadhikari, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the view taken by the Tribunal that the order of termination was stigmatic is not at all correct. He submitted that the respondent was on probation and it is well settled that the services of a probationer can be terminated if his services are not found to be satisfactory. In support of his aforesaid submission, he cited the decision of Supreme Court in Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI OF Medical Sciences and Anr. , AIR2002 SC 23 , 2002 (1 )ALD81 (SC ), 2002 (1 )AWC42 (SC ), [2002 (92 )FLR349 ], JT2001 (9 )SC 420 , 2002 Lablc113 , (2002 )I LLJ690 SC , (2002 )1 MLJ151 (SC ), 2001 (8 )SCALE8 , (2002 )1 SCC520 , 2002 (2 )SCT358 (SC ), 2002 (1 )SLJ336 (SC ), (2002 )1 UPLBEC28.