UDAY KUMAR SINHA Vs. CANARA BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS application has been filed for quashing the order dated 14.12.1996 whereby the service of the petitioner, while on probation has been terminated by paying him one months salary in lieu of notice. Further prayer made by the petitioner is to quash the order dated 31.3,1997 (Annexure -2) whereby the petitioners prayer to revoke the order of termination had been rejected.

(2.) SHORT facts giving rise to the present application are that by order dated 21.3.1996 (Annexure -5) petitioner was appointed as a Peon on probation for a period of six months. The order of appointment indicated that his service can be terminated during the period of probation by giving him one months notice in writing or salary in lieu thereof. In pursuance of the aforesaid order of appointment petitioner joined his duty at Saraiya Branch of the Respondent Canara Bank on 30th of March, 1996. on probation for a period of six months and during that period, his probation was extended to afford him an opportunity to improve the performance by another three months i.e. 29.12.1996. During the period of probation petitioner absented himself unauthorisedly for a period of 151 days. The Respondent/Bank found the work of the petitioner to be unsatisfactory and, accordingly, terminated his probation by giving him one months salary in lieu of notice and while passing the impugned order it observed as follows:

(3.) THERE is no difficulty in accepting the broad submission of Mr. Mukherjee that in case the order terminating the probation is stigmatic in nature, same would amount to dismissal and before that a regular inquiry has to be held. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the Respondent -Canara Bank submits that the very assumption of the petitioner that the impugned order is stigmatic and punitive in nature is misconceived and therefore before terminating the probation the Bank was not obliged to hold a regular departmental inquiry.