2015 (2) AJR 297

Jharkhand High Court

Hon'ble Judge(s): Sujit Narayan Prasad , J

( A ) Constitution of India Art. 311 , 14 — Termination of service — Validity — Petitioner was initially appointed on probation for a period of one year subject to confirmation — All of a sudden his services were terminated on ground of serious misconduct — If allegation of misconduct constitutes foundation of the action taken, ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice — Impugned order suffers from infirmity.There is no dispute that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive. But, if the misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision taken by the competent authority to dispense with the service of the probationer albeit by a non-stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has punished the employee for an act of misconduct. AIR 2013 SC (Civ) 566, Foll. (Paras2125).....