Krishnadevaraya Education Trust & Anr. Vs. L.A. Balakrishna
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 628 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11995 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2000 in CRP 3807/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11995 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2000 in CRP 3807/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Petitioner: Krishnadevaraya Education Trust & Anr.
Respondent: L.A. Balakrishna
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 628 of 2001
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11995 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2000 in CRP 3807/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 11995 of 2000)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.2.2000 in CRP 3807/99 of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore)
Judges: B.N.KIRPAL & RUMA PAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 15, 2001
Appearances:
Mr. P.P. Rao, Mr. A.K. Goel, Senior Advocates, Ms. Kiran Suri, Mrs. Sheela Goel, Advocates for the appearing parties.
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Educational services – Engineering College – Appointment of Assistant Professor on probation – Termination of services during probation period – Order merely stating that the respondent will be relieved from specified date and that he be paid his dues if any – Order challenged as being in the nature of punishment. Held, order was innocuous. Even if the order was read with the first order which was modified consequent to it being challenged by respondent the contention that the termination was by way of punishment was not tenable.
Held:
There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of probation, the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If his services are not satisfactory which means that he is not suitable for the job, then the employer has a right to termi-nate the services as a reason thereof. If the termination during probationary period is without any reason, perhaps such an order would be sought to be challenged on the ground of being arbi-trary. Therefore, normally services of an employee on probation would be terminated, when he is found not to be suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without assigning any reason. If the order on the face of it states that his services are being terminated because his performance is not satisfactory, the employer runs the risk of the allegation being made that the order itself casts a stigma. We do not say that such a contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is preferred that the order itself does not mention the reason why the services are being terminated. If such an order is challenged, the employer will have to indicate the grounds on which the services of a proba-tioner were terminated. Mere fact that in response to the chal-lenge, the employer states that the services were not satisfac-tory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the proba-tioner were being terminated by way of punishment. The probation-er is on test and if the services are found not to be satisfac-tory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of appointment, the right to terminate the services. In the instant case, the second order which was passed terminating the services of the respondent was innocuously worded. Even if we take into consider-ation the first order which was passed which mentioned that a Committee which had been constituted came to the conclusion that the job proficiency of the respondent was not upto the mark, that would be a valid reason for terminating the services of the respondent. That reason cannot be cited and relied upon by con-tending that the termination was by way of punishment. (Paras 5, 6, 7)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent was appointed to the post of Assistant Profes-sor on 22nd September, 1990 on probation. Within the probationary period, by order dated 16th June, 1991, his services were termi-nated. In the order terminating the services, it was mentioned as follows :
“As a matter of policy, as usual, a Committee was constituted to go into the general performance of each staff. The Committee after having gone through the records of each individual, right from the date of his/her inception into the Institute, is of the opinion that your on-the-job proficiency is not upto the mark. Hence, the Institution feels that your services are no longer required.”
3. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Educational Tribunal on the ground that the order terminating the appointment casts a stigma and, therefore, such an order could not be passed without holding a departmental inquiry.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellants herein conceded and the said order of termination was set aside. Subsequently again, within the period of probation, a fresh order of termination was passed which was as follows :
“Sri L.A. Balakrishna, Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering will be relieved of his duties with effect from 1.8.1991. He may be paid his dues if any.”
This order was again challenged and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the real reason for passing this order was that his services were found to be unsuitable and, therefore, this was by way of punishment. The order was set aside and the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.
5. There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of probation, the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If his services are not satisfactory which means that he is not suitable for the job, then the employer has a right to terminate the services as a reason thereof. If the termination during probationary period is without any reason, perhaps such an order would be sought to be challenged on the ground of being arbitrary. Therefore, normally services of an employee on proba-tion would be terminated, when he is found not to be suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without assigning any reason. If the order on the face of it states that his services are being terminated because his performance is not satisfactory, the employer runs the risk of the allegation being made that the order itself casts a stigma. We do not say that such a contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is preferred that the order itself does not mention the reason why the services are being terminated.
6. If such an order is challenged, the employer will have to indicate the grounds on which the services of a probationer were terminated. Mere fact that in response to the challenge, the employer states that the services were not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the probationer were being terminated by way of punishment. The probationer is on test and if the services are found not to be satisfactory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of appointment, the right to termi-nate the services.
7. In the instant case, the second order which was passed termi-nating the services of the respondent was innocuously worded. Even if we take into consideration the first order which was passed which mentioned that a Committee which had been constitut-ed came to the conclusion that the job proficiency of the re-spondent was not upto the mark, that would be a valid reason for terminating the services of the respondent. That reason cannot be cited and relied upon by contending that the termination was by way of punishment.
8. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court. No costs.
1. Special leave granted.
2. The respondent was appointed to the post of Assistant Profes-sor on 22nd September, 1990 on probation. Within the probationary period, by order dated 16th June, 1991, his services were termi-nated. In the order terminating the services, it was mentioned as follows :
“As a matter of policy, as usual, a Committee was constituted to go into the general performance of each staff. The Committee after having gone through the records of each individual, right from the date of his/her inception into the Institute, is of the opinion that your on-the-job proficiency is not upto the mark. Hence, the Institution feels that your services are no longer required.”
3. The aforesaid order was challenged before the Educational Tribunal on the ground that the order terminating the appointment casts a stigma and, therefore, such an order could not be passed without holding a departmental inquiry.
4. Before the Tribunal, the appellants herein conceded and the said order of termination was set aside. Subsequently again, within the period of probation, a fresh order of termination was passed which was as follows :
“Sri L.A. Balakrishna, Assistant Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering will be relieved of his duties with effect from 1.8.1991. He may be paid his dues if any.”
This order was again challenged and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the real reason for passing this order was that his services were found to be unsuitable and, therefore, this was by way of punishment. The order was set aside and the High Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, this appeal.
5. There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of probation, the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If his services are not satisfactory which means that he is not suitable for the job, then the employer has a right to terminate the services as a reason thereof. If the termination during probationary period is without any reason, perhaps such an order would be sought to be challenged on the ground of being arbitrary. Therefore, normally services of an employee on proba-tion would be terminated, when he is found not to be suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without assigning any reason. If the order on the face of it states that his services are being terminated because his performance is not satisfactory, the employer runs the risk of the allegation being made that the order itself casts a stigma. We do not say that such a contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is preferred that the order itself does not mention the reason why the services are being terminated.
6. If such an order is challenged, the employer will have to indicate the grounds on which the services of a probationer were terminated. Mere fact that in response to the challenge, the employer states that the services were not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the probationer were being terminated by way of punishment. The probationer is on test and if the services are found not to be satisfactory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of appointment, the right to termi-nate the services.
7. In the instant case, the second order which was passed termi-nating the services of the respondent was innocuously worded. Even if we take into consideration the first order which was passed which mentioned that a Committee which had been constitut-ed came to the conclusion that the job proficiency of the re-spondent was not upto the mark, that would be a valid reason for terminating the services of the respondent. That reason cannot be cited and relied upon by contending that the termination was by way of punishment.
8. We, accordingly, allow this appeal and set aside the decision of the Tribunal as well as that of the High Court. No costs.
