1966 (3) TMI 85 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court Upholds Termination of Probation

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the respondent's petition. The court concluded that the ... - Issues Involved:1. Termination of probation and reversion of the respondent.2. Whether the respondent should be deemed confirmed after the probation period.3. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution.4. Validity of the Governor's order dated August 13, 1957, and December 1, 1958.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Termination of probation and reversion of the respondent:The respondent was appointed as a Naib Tahsildar and later promoted to Tahsildar on probation. An inquiry was initiated based on a report that he had drawn excess traveling allowance. The State Government directed the Deputy Commissioner to hold an inquiry. Subsequently, the Governor terminated the respondent's probation and reverted him to Naib Tahsildar. The respondent challenged this, arguing that his probationary period had expired and he should be confirmed as Tahsildar.2. Whether the respondent should be deemed confirmed after the probation period:The court examined the Subordinate Revenue Executive Service (Tahsildars) Rules, 1944. Rule 12 specified a probation period of two years, extendable by the Board or Governor. Rule 14 allowed reversion if the probationer failed to give satisfaction. Rule 15 required passing departmental exams for confirmation. The respondent had not passed these exams by 1955, thus not qualifying for confirmation. The court held that mere expiry of the probation period does not result in automatic confirmation without an explicit order.3. Compliance with Article 311 of the Constitution:The High Court had previously held that the order terminating probation and withholding promotion was punitive and violated Article 311, which guarantees reasonable opportunity to show cause against punitive actions. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, stating the inquiry was to determine probation status, not to impose punishment. The Governor's order terminating probation was within his authority under Rule 14, and the subsequent cancellation of the promotion stoppage order did not affect the validity of the probation termination.4. Validity of the Governor's order dated August 13, 1957, and December 1, 1958:The High Court had observed that the Governor's attempt to retrospectively convert the punitive order into a non-punitive one was invalid. The Supreme Court, however, found that the inquiry was consistently under Rule 14, and the order terminating probation was valid. The punitive aspect of the order (stopping promotion) was not enforced and later canceled, removing any grievance. Thus, the original order's character as a probation termination remained intact.Conclusion:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order and dismissing the respondent's petition. The court concluded that the termination of probation was valid under Rule 14, and there was no violation of Article 311. The respondent's continuation in the post after probation did not imply confirmation, and the Governor's cancellation of the punitive part of the order resolved any issues of procedural fairness.