JUDGMENT M. Katju, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner is challenging the impugned order dated 13.8.96 (Annexure-4 to the petition) by which his service has been terminated.
2. The petitioner was appointed by order dated 29.8.88 (Annexure-1 to the petition) on probation in the service of the respondent. This order states that the petitioner will be on probation for two years. The petitioner joined on 9.9.88. In paragraph 3 of the petition, it is stated that the petitioner was appointed after selection after advertisement of the post and facing a Selection Committee which recommended his appointment. The petitioner was suspended from 11.12.88 as stated in paragraph 8 of the writ petition as he was involved in a criminal case, but after hts acquittal, the suspension order was revoked and he joined as Development Officer vide order dated 3.2.95 (Annexure-2 to the petition). However, the order dated 3.2.95 itself states that the revocation of the petitioner's suspension is without prejudice to the right of the Company to take action under the relevant Rules. By the impugned order, the petitioner's service has been terminated.
3. A counter-affidavit has been filed in which it stated in paragraph 3 that the petitioner was appointed as Development Officer Grade II on probation. In paragraph 4, it is stated that the petitioner was informed when he joined his duties on 17.2.96 after revocation of his suspension order that his period of probation will be one year now and he will have to complete his target of Rs. 5.25 lacs in one year for the purposes of confirmation. In paragraph 7 of the counter-affidavit, it is stated that the petitioner was not automatically confirmed. In paragraph 8 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that the petitioner did not complete the quota of 5.25 lacs in one year. In paragraph 10 of the counter-affidavit, It is stated that since the petitioner could not complete his target, his service was terminated as his work was not found satisfactory.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Management of the Express Newspapers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, AIR 1964 SC 806.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that since the probation period of the petitioner was two years, his service could not be terminated before expiry of two years. The petitioner worked from 9.9.1988 to 11.12.88 i.e., for about three months when he was suspended. After the revocation of his suspension he Joined duty on 17.2.95 but his service was terminated on 13.8.96, i.e., after about one and a half years. Hence he has worked for only about one year and nine months and not two years. Hence learned counsel contended that the petitioner's termination of service was Illegal as he was not allowed to work on probation for the full period of two years. Learned counsel for the petitioner on the strength of the decision of the Supreme Court in Management of the Express Newspaper (supra) contended that the termination of service was illegal.
6. In the aforesaid decision the Supreme Court observed in paragraph 12 it appears clear to us that without anything more an appointment on probation for six months gives the employer no right to terminate the service of an employee before six months had expired except on the ground of misconduct or other sufficient reasons in which case even the services of a permanent employee could be terminated."
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ganga Nagar Zila Dugdh Sangh v. Priyanka Joshi. JT 1999 15) SC 1, where it was observed :
"When judging the performance of a person if the services are terminated during the period of probation, obviously there has to be a reason for such termination. If the services are terminated during the probationary period without any reason whatsoever, it is possible that such an order may be impugned on the ground that it has been passed arbitrarily. On the other hand, when there is a reason for terminating the services during the probationary period and the order terminating services is worded in an innocuous manner, we do not see any force in the contention that such an order has to be regarded as by way of punishment."
8. Similarly in Rajasthani Adult Education Association v. Ashok Bhattacharya. 1998 (9) SCO 61, the termination of service during the period on probation was upheld by the Supreme Court. In K. V. Keishnamanis v. Lalit Kala Academy, 1996 (5) SCC 89, the service of the petitioner was terminated during the probation period as his work was not found satisfactory. In the counter-affidavit, the reason for termination of service was staled that the driving of the staff car by the petitioner was not found satisfactory. The Supreme Court upheld the termination of service. A similar view was taken by the Supreme Court in Hukum Chand Khundia v. Chandigarh Administration and another, 1995 (6) SCC 534.
9. We are of the opinion that there is no hard and fast rule that if a person is appointed on probation for a certain period, then his service cannot be terminated before that period has come to an end. A person appointed on probation is not a permanent employee and he is only a temporary employee and il is settled law tha