SHANTANU MAZUMDAR Vs. CHAIRMAN CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the judgment and order dated 18.12.2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna in O.A.No. 451 of 1997 whereby the Tribunal dismissed the application and held that the order dated 25.3.1997 issued by the respondents removing the petitioner from service needs no interference.

(2.) The facts of the case lie in a narrow compass : Petitioner was appointed as Administrative Officer in Indian Lac Research Institute with effect from 16.12.1992 by office memo dated 10.9.92. Initially, the petitioner was kept on probation for a period of two years from the date of his joining on the post. As per terms of the appointment, period of probation may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority. It appears that after the expiry of two years of probationary period some adverse remarks were communicated in the year 1995 which, after accepting detailed representation, were expunged vide order dated 7.8.1996. In 1996, petitioner was asked to show-cause for his alleged mis-behaviour with the sub-ordinates and for financial irregularities. In March, 1996 vide Office Order dated 30.3.96, the probationary period of the petitioner was extended for a period of one year ie. upto 14.12.95. By Office Order dated 25.7.96 petitioner was transferred and posted as Administrative Officer in the National Research Centre, Gujarat. Simultaneously, vide Order dated 9.4.96, an Inquiry Committee was constituted for conducting impartial inquiry on the allegation levelled against the petitioner. However, without waiting the result of the inquiry, the case of the petitioner was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee( D.P.C.) who recommended for his discharge from service. Hence, order of discharge was passed by the respondents vide order dated 25.3.97. The said order was challenged by the petitioner before the Tribunal by filing aforementioned O.A.No. 451 of 1997, which was dismissed. Hence, this writ petition.

(3.) The Tribunal proceeded on the basis that the initial appointment of the petitioner was on probation for a period of two years, which was subsequently extended but since the appointment was on temporary basis on probation, failure to complete the period of probation satisfactorily would render the applicant liable to be discharged from service. His services could be terminated by the concerned appointing authority during the period of probation without any show cause notice. The Tribunal held as under: