PROVAT P KONWAR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) An order dated 17.8.2000, terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of duties, is the subject matter of challenge in the present proceeding.

(2.) The facts necessary to appreciate the challenge made in the instant writ application and to decide the entitlement of the writ petitioner to the reliefs claimed may be briefly set out as hereunder: By an order dated 29.3.96, the petitioner was appointed as Manager (Marketing) in the respondent Corporation. The aforesaid appointment was made on probation for a period of one year with the stipulation that the period of probation may be further extended at the discretion of the management. By order dated 21.8.97, the probation period of the writ petitioner was extended for a further period of 6 (six) months with effect from 28.3.97. The petitioner thus continued to be in service under the respondent Corporation. He was allowed to attend to the duties of the General Manager (Marketing) by order dated 24.7.98. By another order dated 31.8.98, the petitioner was allowed to discharge the duties of the Zonal Manager with Headquarters at Guwahati. The petitioner claims to have discharged the aforesaid higher responsibilities satisfactorily. On 30.8.99, the petitioner was transferred to the Zonal Office at Imphal. Thereafter, it appears that after serving for about 3 months at Imphal, the petitioner sought leave on health grounds and continued to remain away from duties for a considerable period of time until his case was reviewed by the Medical Board which certified him to be fit for duties w.e.f. 19.6.2000. The authority by order dated 8.8.2000 regularised the period of absence of the petitioner from 5.11.99 to 19.6.2000 by granting him leave due to his credit. It, however, appears that prior to that on 2.5.2000, the probation period of the petitioner was further extended until further orders. The aforesaid order dated 2.5.2000 is stated to be in continuation of the earlier order dated 21.8.97 extending the period of probation of the petitioner. Thereafter, the impugned order dated 17.8.2000 was issued terminating the services of the writ petitioner on the ground of unsatisfactory performance of duties as already noticed.

(3.) Mr. BP Katakey, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf the of the writ petitioner has contended that after the expiry of the extended period of probation as made by the order dated 21.8.97, the petitioner continued to be in service and in fact, he was given higher responsibilities of General Manager (Marketing) and Zonal Manager. In the year 1998, a certificate commending the writ petitioner for excellent work had also been issued by the authority of the Corporation. Nothing adverse relating to performance of duties was communicated to the writ petitioner asking him, in any manner, to step up his efficiency and performance at any point of time. The order dated. 2.5.2000 extending the probation period of the petitioner made in continuation of earlier order dated 21..8.97 and the order of termination dated 17.8.2000 is, therefore, contended to be actuated by reasons other than bonafide. A right akin to confirmation in service is claimed upon expiry of the extended period of probation on the basis of the facts subsequent. The learned counsel has argued that even if it is deemed that the writ petitioner continued to remain on probation, the instant is not a case of discharge simpliciter. Legal Malice is evident for which reason this Court should lift the veil to hold that the petitioner has been removed by way of punishment. Two decisions of the Apex Court in the case of DP Banerjee vs. SN Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & others reported in (1999) 3 SCC 60 and in the case of Pavanedra Narayan Verma vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & another reported in 2001 AIR SCW 4616 : (2002) 1 SCC 520 have been pressed into service in support of the contentions advanced.