TMI Blog2005 (11) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ation or order of termination. 3. The probation period was extended by another letter dated 8.5.1987 in which it was stated:- It is reported that the overall performance and conduct of Sri B.S.Chopra during probationary period is found to be unsatisfactory. Although it is open to the Management to terminate the services of Sri B.S.Chopra as per the terms of appointment the Management considers it necessary to afford one more opportunity to him to improve his performance and conduct. Accordingly, his period of probation is extended for a period of six months from 02.03.1997. 4. It appears that on 5.8.1988 a show cause was issued to the petitioner asking him to show cause why action be not taken against him on account of certain shortages in cash. However, thereafter no enquiry was held and instead by an order dated 28.9.1988 his service was terminated on the following terms:- You, Sri B.S.Chopra were appointed as Assistant Accounts Officer vide appointment order No. KHDC:ADM:10-81/23197 dated 19.02.1986 and placed on probation for one year from 02.03.1986. As your overall performance and conduct were found to be unsatisfactory, the probation was further extended to 6 mon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. The other line of cases is where while there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that the officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiry the order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where, though under the rules the maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximum period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e of Chartered Accountants of India v. Price Waterhouse and Anr. (1997)6SCC312). 13. A construction that reduces one of the provisions to a useless lumber (vide Calcutta Gas Co. (Proprietary) Ltd. v. State of W.B. (AIR1962SC1044) or dead letter (vide J.K.Cotton Spinning Weaving Mills v. State of U.P. (1961)ILLJ540SC ) is not harmonious construction, and hence has to be avoided. The statute has to be read as a whole and one provision of the Act should be construed with reference to other provisions in the same Act so as to make a consistent enactment of the whole statute. Such a construction has the merit of avoiding any inconsistency or repugnancy either within a section or between a section and other parts of the statute. It is the duty of the courts to avoid a head on clash (vide Raj Krishna v. Binod Kanungo ([1954]1SCR913); Sultana Begum v. Premchand Jain (AIR1997SC1006). It should not be lightly assumed that Parliament had given with one hand what it took away with the other (vide Dormer v. Newdcastle-on-tyne Corporation (1940) 2 All ER 521 ); Tahsildar Singh v. State of U.P. (1959CriLJ1231) ; K.M. Nanawati v. State of Bombay (1961CriLJ173) ; Krishna Kumar v. State ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a probationer arises when the letter of appointment so stipulates or the Rules governing service conditions so indicate. In the absence of such term in the letter of appointment or in the relevant Rules, it can be inferred on the basis of the relevant Rules by implication, as was the case in Dharam Singh. But it cannot be said that merely because a maximum period of probation has been provided in the Service Rules, continuance of the probationer thereafter would ipso facto be held to be a deemed confirmation which would certainty run contrary to the seven-Judge Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Samsher Singh and the Constitution Bench decisions in the cases of Sukhbans Singh, G.S.Ramaswamy and Akbar Ali Khan. 20. In view of the above, we find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel for appellant that the service of appellant must be deemed to have been confirmed on the expiry of two years from the date of his appointment. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the impugned termination order is punitive in nature as it was preceded by a show cause notice dated 5.9.1988. 22. In State of U.P. and Ors. v. Ram Bachan Tripathi (2005)IIIL ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
