BALWAN SINGH SHARAI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition challenges the order of termination of service by the 2 nd respondent, which is the Haryana Welfare Society for Hearing and Speech Handicapped, a Society registered under the Society Registration Act. It is an admitted case that the termination order was issued on 12.01.1988 during the time when the petitioner was still undergoing a period of probation in terms of the order of appointment dated 17.07.1987. The order insofar as it is stated relevant, as follows:

(2.) The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that although the order of termination reads as a termination simpliciter, it really constituted a stigma against him. He would read the stigma in the order of termination through the contentions raised in the written statement. The initial cause of action for the writ petition must be on the facts and documents brought prior to the incident and cannot be picked up from the counter itself. There is, however, case law to the effect that motivation of employer could be relevant and even a reply filed in Court could be taken as expression of what was intended by the respondent. The reply brings out three facts: (i) his work and conduct was not good; (ii) deaf and dumb children studying in the school which the Society was running got lost during the relevant time and the petitioner along with two other persons were suspected of being guilty of dereliction of duty and (iii) the petitioner did not know how to keep accounts regularly. As regards the contention that the two children went missing, there is no denial of the incident itself but the learned counsel wants to contend that it was a Chowkidar, who was responsible and the petitioner had no role to play and it was the petitioner, who brought the episode of the missing children to the Management's knowledge. A termination order of probation is invariably on some satisfaction that the work and conduct is not good; if it were to be merely whimsical, it cannot stand the test of validity itself. Therefore, it would defy logic for anyone to contend that the respondents could not have any reason to terminate the services of a probationer. So long as the action was not motivated and was not a biased action, the termination on an observation that the person was not found to be fit cannot be taken as a stigmatic.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner refers to three decisions of Hon'ble the Supreme Court relating to termination of service of probationers. In "Smt. Rajinder Kaur v. Punjab State and another, 1986 AIR(SC) 1790", the issue was of termination of services of a lady constable during the period of probation. The Court found that the constable's services was civil service under Article 311(2) of the Constitution and the rule contemplated under law, which applied to such a person was the Punjab Police Rules. 1934.