PRITHVI RAJ Vs. SRIGANGANAGAR KSHETRIYA GRAMIN BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was appointed as officer in the respondent bank by an order dated 20. 2. 1985 (Annex. 1) on probation for a period of two years. However, he actually joined the services on 11. 3. 1986. During one year of probation his performance was not found satisfactory by the Bank. He was found to be habituated of remaining absent on important occasions like annual closing accounts also, so much so that he remained absent for nine days without salary. Thus, it was felt by the bank that the petitioner had no interest in the bank services. Still, the bank considered the case of the petitioner sympathetically keeping in mind his young age and remaining period of service. It was decided to curtail the period of remaining one year of probation and his probation period was extended for three months by an order dated 7. 3. 86 (Annex. 6 ). THE petitioner was advised to improve his performance during that period. That extended period of probation came to an end on 6. 6. 1986. Somehow or the other, his services were continued till 17. 9. 1986. On that day i. e. on 17. 9. 1986 (Annex. 10) the bank terminated the services of the petitioner by giving him three months notice on the ground that it was not in the interest of the bank to continue his services any more. This has been challenged by the petitioner before this Court by way of this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) LEARNED counsel Shri Singhvi for the petitioner vehemently submitted that having extended the period of three months of probation the respondent bank could not have terminated the services of the petitioner before expiry of it. According to him, three months period was extended from 19. 2. 1987 as his earlier probation was for a period of two years. In support of his submission, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon un-reported judgment of this Court (Hon'ble J. C. Verma,j.) delivered on 13th August, 1997 in writ petition No. 1595/87 (1) wherein, reliance was placed upon the two Supreme Court Judgments (i) (The Management of the Express Newspaper (Private) Ltd. Madurai vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madurai & Anr. (2) and (ii) State of Punjab vs. Baldev Singh Khosla In Baldev Singh Khosla's case (supra), the petitioner was promoted on probation and lateron reverted after his probation period was extended and the matter was reman- ded to the authorities for re-consideration by the Apex Court by observing that any decision in that regard should have been taken only after considering his performance for the extended period.

(3.) THE Apex Court further held that the fact of holding an inquiry is not always conclusive. What is decisive is whether the order is really by way of punishment or not ? THE Court has to see the substance of the order and the form.