Petitioner was appointed as Cleaner on 26.9.1998 for a period of one year and was put on probation for the said period. At the time of appointment he had produced a certificate of training of I.T.I., Hameerpur. It transpires from the record that the certificate was verified from the Principal of the I.T.I. Hameerpur and on verification of the same it is found to have not been issued by the said Principal and a communication dated 28.7.1999 to this effect has been issued by the Principal of I.T.I. Hameerpur. The claimant services were terminated on 23.3.1999. An Industrial Dispute was raised by the employee before the Labour Court and the Labour Court vide its order dated 7.11.1997 allowed the claim and set aside the order of termination. It is this order which is subject matter of challenge before this Court.
Case of the petitioner is that the workman was under probation and it is during this period it was found that a certificate which he had produced was found forged. This was based upon a communication of the Principal of I.T.I., Hameerpur dated 28.7.1999 and being a probationer the workman had no right to be heard in the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the case of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar Srivastava Vs State of Jharkhan reported in 2011-Lawas (SC)-3-55.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record.
There is no dispute with this proposition of law that where a person who is placed on probation can be discharged during period of probation. No enquiry in the matter is required in this behalf. The object of placing a person on probation is to enable the employer to adjudge the suitability of an employee for continuation in service and also for confirmation in service. During period of probation his activities are generally under scrutiny and on the basis of his over all performance a decision is generally taken by the employers as to whether his service should be confirmed or he should be released from service. Once the decision to this effect is recorded by the employer the option is either to confirm his services or to release him from service. But where the order of termination is based upon a complaint that the certificate procured by the workman is forged which is foundation of the termination order then the principle of discharge simplicitor cannot be applied. Satisfaction of the employer which empowers him to order the discharge of an employee is only to assess the suitability of a person to be retained in service or not. Any act of the employer unconnected with the purpose which results the termination of an employee then the veil has to be lifted in order to find out the purpose for such termination. Once it is disclosed that services of the employee are terminated for some misconduct even if he is on probation then the enquiry in the matter is required to be conducted.
In the present case, foundation of the order is that he has managed to get an employment on the basis of a certificate which was found to be forged. This is a matter which requires to be enquired into and an opportunity has to be given to the workman to rebut this plea. Petitioner cannot invoke the principle that since the workman is on probation as such he has power to dispense with his services, even if there is a case of misconduct on the basis of which his services have been terminated. It is already stated herein supra, that the foundation of the order determines the scope of interference by the Court where the order clearly mentions that the order of discharge is based upon the fact that the work of employee was not found to be satisfactory than no judicial review in such matter is permissible. But where the order of discharge is founded on the ground that there are allegations of misconduct against the employer in that eventuality the Courts have always power to review the order on the ground as to whether enquiry in the matter has been conducted or not before issuance of order of termination. In the present case, no such enquiry has been conducted.
In this view of the matter, I do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order. The impugned order do not suffers from any illegality or infirmity. The writ petition lacks merits and is hereby dismissed.
Order Date :- 12.4.2012 RKS/