By way of these petitions, the petitioners have prayed for quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 07.06.2011 and a communication dated 22.09.2011 and further prayed to command the respondent to reinstate the petitioners in service on the post which the petitioners were holding prior to the order of termination in substantive capacity with all consequential and incidental benefits. Because of communality of central issues, these petitions are heard and are being disposed of by this common order.
2. The brief facts of the petitioners' case in Special Civil Application No. 2448 of 2012 can be succinctly stated as under:-
3. The petitioners had applied for the post of the Probationary Officer with respondent no.1 and they were appointed and resumed his duty on 15.05.2009 as such post after fulfilling all examination procedures. They were appointed on two years probation period. Thereafter, after probation period was over, the petitioners were informed by respondent no.2 that his probation period was extended for further 3 months under Rule 16(2) of SBIOSR. The petitioners made representation, but the petitioners were terminated by an order of termination dated 07.06.2011 on the ground that petitioners were not found to be satisfactory. The petitioners preferred Special Civil Application No. 8304 of 2011 before this Court, wherein direction given to respondent authorities to decide the representation of the petitioners. Thereafter, the respondents informed the petitioners by communication dated 22.09.2011 that the order of termination is based on the result of the examination, wherein the institute suspected present petitioners in a copy case. Hence, the present petitions.
4. In view of the decision of Apex Court in the case of Nehru Yuva Kenrdar Sangathan, V/s. Mehbub Alam Laskar, reported in, (2008) 2 SCC 479,wherein it has been held in para 16 are as under:-
"16.
The respondent was appointed on a temporary basis. He was put on probation. Indisputably, the period of probation was required to be completed upon rendition of satisfactory service. Only in the event of unsatisfactory performance by the employee, the termination of probation would have been held to be justified. It is however, well known that when the foundation for such an order is not an unsatisfactory performance on the part of the employee but overt acts amounting to misconduct, an opportunity of hearing to the employee concerned is imperative. In other words, if the employee is found to have committed an misconduct on its face, the same would be vitiated, if in effect and substance it is found to be stigmatic in nature."
5. Mr.
Shivang Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners contended that he has been appointed as Probation Officer after a regular selection process. During probation, they underwent training at various departments and they have successfully completed the training without receiving any adverse remarks and communication regarding short comings. The impugned order passed by the respondents is vitiated, bad, illegal, malicious, without any justification or proper assessment or evaluation about the suitability of the petitioners and that the order of termination is an extreme penalty. It is prayed that the order of termination being unjustified, required to be quashed and set aside.
6. Having heard, Mr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and having gone through the record, this Court is of the considered view that it is not in dispute that the petitioners were appointed as Probationary Officers on two years probation period, but during probation they were to undergo examinations and prima-facie they were suspected that they have committed the grave error. It is also in dispute that the service of the petitioners have been terminated on the ground that in the examination held on 27.02.2011, they were found to be have used unfair means. It is also not in dispute that including petitioners, three other Probationary Officers were also found to have been involved in use of such unfair means. The respondents have also given the benefits of extension of period, but still finding no improvement, the services of the petitioners were terminated. The respondents have passed a reasoned and detailed order dated 22.09.2011 on his representation dated 25.07.2011, pursuant to the direction given by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 9304 of 2011. The order passed by the respondents is a reasoned and speaking order.
7. In view of the above, the present petitions are devoid of any merits and thus, deserve to be dismissed and are hereby dismissed accordingly.
[K.S.JHAVERI,J] Siddharth// Top