SWAROOPA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as class IV servant on temporary basis for a period of six months by order dated 1st July, 1987 in the office of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jodhpur. The petitioner continued in service even after the expiry of six months and no order of extension or confirmation or of permanent appointment was conveyed to the petitioner. However, the petitioner was conveyed vide Annex. 2 dated 26.10.1989 that his services are expiring on 31.10.1989. Even thereafter, the petitioner's services were not brought to an end and he was allowed to continue. Before communication of 'Annex.2 the petitioner was put under suspension on the ground that he was arrested in connection with criminal case in pursuance of F.I.R. No. 17 of 1989 in which he was accused of having committed offence under sections 37 and 342 I.P.C. on 19.8.1989 and was released on 25.8.1 989. On that count, the petitioner was put under suspension vide order dated 28.8.1989. Thereafter, the petitioner was conveyed vide communication dated 2.4.1 990 that his services were expiring on 31.1.1990 and the same were not extended. The petitioner has challenged the communication Annx.4 dated 2.4.1990. by which his services were sought to be terminated.

(2.) IN the first instance, it was submitted that the order Annx. 4 is not an order of termination simplicitor but it was in fact punitive in nature as it has direct nexus with the alleged criminal proceedings pending against the petitioner. In the alternative, it is submitted that even if the order to be taken as terminating the services simplicitor, the termination order is still invalid as neithernotice under Rule 23A of the Rajasthan Service Rules, 1951 was served on the petitioner nor salary in lieu of such notice was paid to the petitioner before terminating his services and, at any rate, the petitioner being in continuous service for a period of more than two years, his services could not have been brought to an end without complying with the provisions of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) HAVING perused the orders and seen the record made available before the Court, it is apparent that petitioner's appointment vide Annx. 1 was not on probation. Even Annxs. 2 and 4 which are communications informing the petitioner about the date on which the period of his service was expiring does not speak of any probation nor it speaks if the period of probation is not extended or services are being terminated on account of his services having been found unsatisfactory during the period of probation. From the record it also appears that while certain order -sheets have been recorded extending the period from time to time, no such communication was ever made to the petitioner. Annex. 2 only communicates the date on which the period of service expires but does not say that the period was further extended after 31.10.1 989. In these state of affairs, the plea that the petitioner was appointed on probation and during the period of probation his services were not found satisfactory and, therefore, the probation was not extended, cannot be accepted.