http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: V.P.  AHUJA

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       09/03/2000

BENCH: R.P.Sethi, S.S.Ahmad

JUDGMENT:

     S.SAGHIR  AHMAD, J.  Leave granted.  The appellant was appointed  as Chief Executive in the Establishment of Punjab Co-operative  Cotton  Marketing & Spinning Mills  Federation Limited  by order dated 29th of September, 1998.  One of the terms  of his appointment was that he would be on  probation for a period of two years which could be extended further at the  discretion of the Management.  It further provided that during  the probation period, the Management shall have  the right  to  terminate  his   services  without  notice.   His services were terminated by order dated 2.12.1998 reading as under:-  "ORDER Sh.  V.P.  Ahuja, S/o Late Sh.  H.N.   Ahuja was appointed on probation for 2 years as Chief Executive of the   Coop.    Spg.    Mills   Ltd.,  vide   orders   Endst. No.Spinfed/CCA/7844-45 dated 29.9.98 and posted at Bacospin. However,  he  failed  in  the   performance  of  his  duties administratively  & technically.  Therefore, as per Clause-I of  the  said appointment order, the services of  Sh.   V.P. Ahuja  are hereby terminated with immediate effect.  Sd/-  ( Managing  Director  ) SPINFED" This order was challenged  by the appellant in the Punjab and Haryana High Court through a Writ  Petition  which was dismissed by order dated  26th  of March,  1999 reading as under:- "Vide order dated 2.12.1998, Annexure-P- 17 petitioner has been asked to quit, concededly during  the period of probation.  The impugned order is  not stigmatic and nothing at all has been urged that may detract from  such  an  order being passed during  the  currency  of probation.   Insofar  as,  thus,   order,  Annexure-P-17  is concerned,  we find no infirmity therein." It is this  order which  is challenged in this appeal.  The observation of the High  Court that:- "The impugned order is not stigmatic  and nothing  at all has been urged that may detract from such an order  being  passed during the currency of  probation."  is surprising,  to  say  the  least.  The order  by  which  the services  of the appellant were terminated has already  been quoted  by  us above.  The order, ex facie, is stigmatic  as also  punitive.  The order is founded on the ground that the appellant  had  failed  in  the performance  of  his  duties administratively  and  technically.  It is for  this  reason that  the  services  of the appellant were  terminated.   As pointed out above, the order, ex facie, IN THE SUPREME COURT OF   INDIA  CIVIL  APPELLATE   JURISDICTION   CIVIL   APPEAL NO.___________OF  2000  (Arising out of SLP(C)  No.11701  of 1999) V.P.  Ahuja ...  Appellant Vs.  State of Punjab & Ors. ...   Respondents J U D G M E N T S.SAGHIR AHMAD, J.   Leave granted.   The appellant was appointed as Chief Executive in

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

the  Establishment of Punjab Co-operative Cotton Marketing & Spinning  Mills  Federation Limited by order dated  29th  of September,  1998.   One of the terms of his appointment  was that  he  would  be on probation for a period of  two  years which  could  be extended further at the discretion  of  the Management.   It further provided that during the  probation period, the Management shall have the right to terminate his services  without  notice.  His services were terminated  by order  dated  2.12.1998 reading as under:- "ORDER Sh.   V.P. Ahuja,  S/o Late Sh.  H.N.  Ahuja was appointed on probation for  2  years as Chief Executive of the Coop.   Spg.   Mills Ltd.,  vide  orders   Endst.   No.Spinfed/CCA/7844-45  dated 29.9.98  and posted at Bacospin.  However, he failed in  the performance  of  his duties administratively &  technically. Therefore,  as  per Clause-I of the said appointment  order, the  services of Sh.  V.P.  Ahuja are hereby terminated with immediate  effect.  Sd/- ( Managing Director ) SPINFED" This order  was  challenged  by the appellant in the  Punjab  and Haryana  High  Court  through  a  Writ  Petition  which  was dismissed  by  order  dated 26th of March, 1999  reading  as under:-   "Vide  order  dated   2.12.1998,  Annexure-P-   17 petitioner  has  been asked to quit, concededly  during  the period  of  probation.  The impugned order is not  stigmatic and nothing at all has been urged that may detract from such an  order  being  passed during the currency  of  probation. Insofar as, thus, order, Annexure-P-17 is concerned, we find no  infirmity therein." It is this order which is challenged in  this  appeal.  The observation of the High Court  that:- "The  impugned order is not stigmatic and nothing at all has been  urged that may detract from such an order being passed during the currency of probation." is surprising, to say the least.   The  order by which the services of  the  appellant were  terminated  has already been quoted by us above.   The order,  ex facie, is stigmatic as also punitive.  The  order is  founded  on the ground that the appellant had failed  in the   performance  of  his   duties   administratively   and technically.  It is for this reason that the services of the appellant were terminated.  As pointed out above, the order, ex facie, is stigmatic.  Learned counsel for the respondents has  contended  that the appellant, after  appointment,  was placed  on probation and though the period of probation  was two  years,  his  services could be terminated at  any  time during  the  period of probation without any notice, as  set out  in  the appointment letter.  It is contended  that  the appellant cannot claim any right on the post on which he was appointed  and being on probation, his work and conduct  was all  along  under  scrutiny  and  since  his  work  was  not satisfactory,  his services were terminated in terms of  the conditions  set  out  in the Appointment Order.   This  plea cannot  be  accepted.   A   probationer,  like  a  temporary servant,  is  also  entitled to certain protection  and  his services  cannot  be terminated arbitrarily, nor  can  those services   be  terminated  in  a  punitive  manner   without complying  with  the  principles of  natural  justice.   The affidavit filed by the parties before the High Court as also in  this  Court indicate the background in which the  order, terminating  the  services  of  the appellant,  came  to  be passed.   Such  an  order  which,  on the  face  of  it,  is stigmatic,  could  not  have been passed without  holding  a regular  enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.    The  entire  case  law   with  respect  to   a "probationer"  was  reviewed  by  this  Court  in  a  recent decision  in Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs.  Satvendra Nath Bose National  Centre  for  Basic Sciences,  Calcutta  &  Others, (1999)  3  SCC  60 = AIR 1999 SC 983 = JT 1999 (1)  SC  396.

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

This  decision  fully  covers  the  instant  case  as  well, particularly  as  in  this  case,   the  order  impugned  is stigmatic  on the face of it.  For the reasons stated above, the  appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 26.3.1999, passed by  the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition of the appellant  is allowed.  The order dated 2.12.1998, by  which the  services  of the appellant were terminated, is  quashed with  the  direction that he shall be put back on duty  with all      consequential       benefits.        No      costs. ....................J.      (     S.Saghir       Ahmad     ) ....................J.   ( R.P.  Sethi ) New Delhi, March 6, 2000.   is  stigmatic.  Learned counsel for the  respondents has  contended  that the appellant, after  appointment,  was placed  on probation and though the period of probation  was two  years,  his  services could be terminated at  any  time during  the  period of probation without any notice, as  set out  in  the appointment letter.  It is contended  that  the appellant cannot claim any right on the post on which he was appointed  and being on probation, his work and conduct  was all  along  under  scrutiny  and  since  his  work  was  not satisfactory,  his services were terminated in terms of  the conditions  set  out  in the Appointment Order.   This  plea cannot  be  accepted.   A   probationer,  like  a  temporary servant,  is  also  entitled to certain protection  and  his services  cannot  be terminated arbitrarily, nor  can  those services   be  terminated  in  a  punitive  manner   without complying  with  the  principles of  natural  justice.   The affidavit filed by the parties before the High Court as also in  this  Court indicate the background in which the  order, terminating  the  services  of  the appellant,  came  to  be passed.   Such  an  order  which,  on the  face  of  it,  is stigmatic,  could  not  have been passed without  holding  a regular  enquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.    The  entire  case  law   with  respect  to   a "probationer"  was  reviewed  by  this  Court  in  a  recent decision  in Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs.  Satvendra Nath Bose National  Centre  for  Basic Sciences,  Calcutta  &  Others, (1999)  3  SCC  60 = AIR 1999 SC 983 = JT 1999 (1)  SC  396. This  decision  fully  covers  the  instant  case  as  well, particularly  as  in  this  case,   the  order  impugned  is stigmatic  on the face of it.  For the reasons stated above, the  appeal is allowed, the judgment dated 26.3.1999, passed by  the High Court is set aside and the Writ Petition of the appellant  is allowed.  The order dated 2.12.1998, by  which the  services  of the appellant were terminated, is  quashed with  the  direction that he shall be put back on duty  with all consequential benefits.  No costs.