Shri H.B. Chhathar Vs. State of Gujarat
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP No. 10444/87.
Petitioner: Shri H.B. Chhathar
Respondent: State of Gujarat
Apeal: Civil Appeal Arising out of SLP No. 10444/87.
Judges: RANGANATH MISRA & S. RANGANATHAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 02, 1987
Head Note:
CIVIL SERVICE
Termination of service – By a combined order dated 4-8-1987 the appellants’ probation was extended and services terminated – Appellant deprived of a reasonable opportunity of improving himself – Probation extended by one year.
JUDGEMENT:
O R D E R
1. Special Leave granted.
2. Heard petitioner in person and Mr. Dholakia for the respond-ent. Petitioner’s service as an Assistant Engineer was terminated by order dated 4-8-1987 with effect from subsequent day. There is no dispute that under an order dated 10-11-1983 he was appointed Assistant Engineer on probation for two years w.e.f. 15-11-1983. We have no other order extending his probation after the two years period excepting the one which is a combined order dated 4-8-1987 extending his probation and terminating his service. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 1 it has been stated that since his work was not up to mark his probation was extended upto 5-8-1987 in order to grant him chance to improve. This obviously is not borne out of the facts inasmuch as the order extending probation was as indicated above an order along with the termina-tion of service. In the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the employer wanted the probation to be extended; and if the order had been made earlier extending probation, the appellant could have been given a reasonable opportunity of improving himself. He has been deprived of such an opportunity. We accord-ingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as also the one by which his services have been terminated. The appellant will go back as Assistant Engineer on probation for a term of one year during which period the employer shall be enti-tled to ascertain his suitability. If the appellant join within two weeks from to-day, there will be no break in service. He will be entitled to his salary for the intervening period. The ap-pellant will be entitled to withdraw the money already deposited by the respondent in this court’s Registry.
Appeal allowed.
1. Special Leave granted.
2. Heard petitioner in person and Mr. Dholakia for the respond-ent. Petitioner’s service as an Assistant Engineer was terminated by order dated 4-8-1987 with effect from subsequent day. There is no dispute that under an order dated 10-11-1983 he was appointed Assistant Engineer on probation for two years w.e.f. 15-11-1983. We have no other order extending his probation after the two years period excepting the one which is a combined order dated 4-8-1987 extending his probation and terminating his service. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 1 it has been stated that since his work was not up to mark his probation was extended upto 5-8-1987 in order to grant him chance to improve. This obviously is not borne out of the facts inasmuch as the order extending probation was as indicated above an order along with the termina-tion of service. In the facts of this case, we are satisfied that the employer wanted the probation to be extended; and if the order had been made earlier extending probation, the appellant could have been given a reasonable opportunity of improving himself. He has been deprived of such an opportunity. We accord-ingly allow the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court as also the one by which his services have been terminated. The appellant will go back as Assistant Engineer on probation for a term of one year during which period the employer shall be enti-tled to ascertain his suitability. If the appellant join within two weeks from to-day, there will be no break in service. He will be entitled to his salary for the intervening period. The ap-pellant will be entitled to withdraw the money already deposited by the respondent in this court’s Registry.
Appeal allowed.
