http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: KUNWAR ARUN KUMAR

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: U.P. HILL ELECTRONIC CORPORATION LTD. & ORS.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       28/10/1996

BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      I.A. is dismissed.      This special  leave petition  arises from the Order and judgment of  the Division  Bench of the Allahabad High Court dated July  3, 1996  made on  July 3,  1996 in Writ Petition No.6676(s/s)/92.      The petitioner was appointed on January 15, 1990 in the pay-scale   of    Rs.550-1100/=   with    allowance;   total remuneration  was  coming  to  Rs.1991.40.  He  was  put  on probation as  contemplated under clause (2) of the letter of appointment which reads as under:      "You will  be on  probation  for  a      period of  12 months  from  date of      your joining,  which period  may be      extended from  time to  time at the      discretion   of   the   Management.      During  the  period  of  probation,      your  services  may  be  terminated      without   assigning    any   reason      therefore."      His service was terminated by proceedings dated January 16, 1991 which reads as under:      "During  the  period  of  probation      your  work  performance  was  found      unsatisfactory.    Therefore,  your      services are hereby terminated with      effect  from  16  Jan.  91  as  per      clause  (2)   of  your  appointment      letter referred to above."      The petitioner  challenged the  order of termination in the High  Court. The  High  Court  without  going  into  the question whether or not it is stigma, came to the conclusion that the  respondents had  totally lost  confidence  in  the appellant and  that he was totally unsuitable to the job for which he  was employed  and, therefore,  he  was  found  not entitled to any enquiry. Consequently, it dismissed the writ petition.  Shri  Sehgal,  learned  senior  counsel  for  the petitioner, contends  that the finding recorded amounts to a stigma; action  taken without  conducting enquiry and giving an opportunity  to the  petitioner, is  violative of Article

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

311(2) of  the Constitution  and the  rules made thereunder. Therefore, he  is entitled  to an opportunity of being heard and be dismissed only on the ground of misconduct and not by termination simpliciter.  We do  not agree  with the learned counsel. The order may be a motive and not a foundation as a ground for  dismissal. During  the period  of probation, the authorities are entitled to assess the suitable to remain in service  they   are  entitled   to  record   a  finding   of unsatisfactory performance of the work and duties during the period of  probation. Under  these circumstance, necessarily the appointing authority has to look into the performance of the work  and duties  during the  period of probation and if they record a finding that during that probation period, the work and performance of the duties were unsatisfactory, they are entitled to terminate the service in terms of the letter of appointment without conducting any enquiry. That does not amount to  any stigma. If the record does not support such a conclusion reached  by the authorities, different complexion would arise.  In this  case, they  have recorded the finding that the  petitioner was  regularly absent  on one ground or the  other.   Under  these  circumstances,  the  respondents terminated his  services. We  do not  find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents.      The special leave petition is accordingly dismissed.