STATE OF PUNJAB Vs. DR. MEENA HARDIP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) At the time of the admission of the appeal counsel for the respondent was not heard. Mr. Sharma made an application stating therein that in spite of the fact that the caveat had been filed, the office had failed to attach the same with the paper book. Learned counsel submits that not only interim order could not have been given in this case, if the facts had been brought to the notice of this Court, the appeal itself would not have been admitted. In view of the above, the learned counsel prays that the order of admission be recalled. 1 am of the considered opinion that instead of recalling the order of admission dated 15.1.2002, it would be more appropriate to hear the appeal finally. With the consent of the counsel for the parties the appeal is taken on board for regular hearing.

(2.) I have heard the counsel for the parties at length.

(3.) The trial Court dismissed the suit filed by the respondent holding that she was not on duty when initial period of probation of two years had expired on 7.2.1987. It is further held that since the application for leave had not been rejected by that time, it can be presumed that her period of probation stood extended by one year by implication, and therefore it was not necessary to pass any express order. In the very next line, it is held that the order passed on 9.3.1988 extending me period of probation can be ignored having no implication at all. The learned trial Court has further held that since the order has been passed during the period of probation it was not necessary to comply with the rules of natural justice. The judgments cited by the counsel for the respondent before the trial Court have also been distinguished on the ground that they are not applicable as the services of the respondent have been terminated during the period of probation.