MURARI LAL SHARMA Vs. STATE BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as Peon in the State Bank of India by order dated December 1, 1982 on probation. His probation period was further extended. Meanwhile, in the year 1983 a criminal case was registered against the petitioner and during investigation he was arrested by the Police. On May 24, 1983 (Annexure 2 to the petition) an order was issued by the Bank stating that the petitioner being arrested by the Police on the charge of theft, exercising the powers in Para 522(1) of Shastri Award, his service is being terminated and he is being paid one month's salary in lieu of notice. THE petitioner was tried for the offence under Section 380IPC and was sentenced for one year's imprisonment. Later on in appeal the learned Addl. Sessions Judge No. 2, Jaipur City, Jaipur, set aside the order of conviction by order dated January 16, 1987. After acquittal the petitioner approached the Bank and made representation that since he had been acquitted, he be reinstated in service. THE Bank refused to take him back in service and therefore, the petitioner approached this Court for redressal of his grievance. THE Bank entered appearance and filed its return and submitted that the petitioner's services have been terminated in terms of Para 522(1) of Shastri Award which provides that the services of probationer may be terminated by giving one month's notice or on payment of a month's pay and allowance in lieu of notice.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY, when the petitioner's service was terminated he was on probation and his service was not confirmed by the Bank. The employer has every authority to terminate the services of a probationer if during the probation period the employee's work is not satisfactory. Against the petitioner there was a criminal case and he was arrested and was convicted by the Magistrate, although later on acquitted by the Appellate Court but it cannot be said that the petitioner's services were terminated during the probation period without any reason. It cannot be said that the termination of the services of the petitioner was arbitrary. Apart from above facts the petitioner had no right over the post during the probation period. That being the case there is no merit in writ petition and the same is dismissed. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.