TARSEM LAL Vs. HRTC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this appeal, judgment dtd. 3/12/2012, passed by learned single Judge is under challenge. The record reveals that the appellant-writ petitioner, a driver in the respondent-Corporation, was discharged during the probation period vide order dtd. 27/5/1996/30/7/1996, Annexure P-3, simply on the ground that his services were no longer required. No doubt, he was called upon to show cause to the memorandum Annexure P-1, issued to him. He has filed reply Annexure P-2 thereto. The order Annexure P-3, however, is simpliciter and casts no stigma at all on his future career. The Division Bench of this Court in Sunish Aggarwal v. State of H.P. & another,2019 1 HimLR 563, a case where in the impugned order certain facts were recorded with regard to the unsatisfactory services rendered by the petitioner, has held as under:

(2.) It is not open to the person discharged from service during the probation period to claim an opportunity of being heard. This part of the judgment is also reproduced as under:-

(3.) The case in hand is on better footing as compared to Sunish Aggarwal's case (supra) because misconduct, if any, on the part of the appellant-writ petitioner has not at all been discussed in the impugned order, which accordingly to us, on the face of it, is an order simplicitor qua discharge of the petitioner from service.