TMI Blog1963 (2) TMI 58X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inally in- formed that the explanation given by him was not satisfactory and that his services were to be terminated after August 31, 1952. The appellant then filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court and his main contention was that he was entitled to the protection of Art. 31 1 (2) of the Constitution and as this was not afforded to him the order terminating his services was illegal. Besides it was urged on his behalf that he was governed by rr. 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services (Classification, Control and appeal) Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and therefore lie was entitled to the protection of those rules. As however his services had been terminated without compliance with those rules he was in any case entitled to reinstatement. The High Court held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution. It further held that rr. 49 and 55-B of the Rules did not apply to the appellant and he was governed by the contract of his service which provided that his services might be terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned during the period of probation. The High Court f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o be discharged at any time during the period of his probation subject to the rules governing such cases : [see The State of Orissa v. Rant Narain Das (1)]. The appellant in the present case was undoubtedly a probationer. There is also no doubt that the termination of his service was not by way of punishment and cannot therefore amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art. 311. As a probationer he would be liable to be discharged during the period of probation subject to the rules in force in that connection. The High Court therefore was right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Art 311 (2) of the Constitution. It is however urged on behalf of the appellant that the rules themselves made it obligatory that Art 311 (2) should be complied with before the services of a probationer were terminated. In this connection reliance is placed on Explanation 2 to r. 49 of the Rules, as amended of October 10, 1947. That Explanation read as follows : - The discharge of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation, for some specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service, amounts to removal or dismissal withi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as afforded the protection of r. 55-B before action was taken to terminate his service if that rule applies. Rule 55-B was inserted in the Rules in November, 1949 and reads thus :- Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation, for any specific fault or on account of his unsuitability for the service, the probationer shall be apprised of the grounds of such proposal and given an opportunity to show cause against it, before orders are passed by the authority competent to terminate the employment. This rule would clearly apply to the appellant who was a probationer as it was in force at the relevant time, unless r. 3 (a) makes it inapplicable in view of the term mentioned above in the letter of appointment issued to him. Rule 3 (a) lays down- These rules shall apply to every person in the whole-time civil employment of a Government in India (other than a person so employed only occasionally or subject to discharge at less than one month's notice) except- (a) persons for 'whose appointment and conditions of employment special provision is made by or under any law for the time being in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1951. On July 4, 1952, the appellant was given a notice by which he was afforded an opportunity to show cause why his services should not be terminated and was informed that any representation made by him in this regard would be duly considered. The notice said that the appellant's work had not come up to the average standard of a Programme Assistant and four defects were pointed out, namely, (i) immaturity in taste, and want of tact and discretion, (ii) inability to think logically and plan systematically, (iii) want of programme sense and background necessary for an average programme man, and (iv) he could not be entrusted to work without supervision. The appellant gave his explanation in reply to this notice which was duly considered and on July 31, 1962, he was informed that his explanation had not been considered satisfactory and therefore his service would be terminated after August 31, 1952. It has been contended on behalf of the appellant that this was not sufficient compliance with r. 55-B. That rule lays down that the probationer shall be apprised of the grounds on which it was proposed to terminate his services and given an opportunity to show cause against it. W ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
