Deemed confirmation in service beyond probation can trigger Article 311 safeguards against punitive termination.

Where service rules fix a maximum probation period and an employee continues in service beyond that limit without an express order of confirmation, deemed confirmation may arise from the expiry of the probationary ceiling, continued service, and related conduct such as grant of increments. Once confirmed by implication, termination of that tenure cannot be treated as a simple discharge; it operates as removal from service. As the employees were terminated without departmental enquiry, hearing, or compliance with the disciplinary rules, the orders attracted Article 311 safeguards and were invalid as punitive removals.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether employees allowed to continue beyond the maximum prescribed period of probation without an express order of confirmation could be deemed to have been confirmed in service. (ii) Whether termination of their services after such deemed confirmation amounted to removal from service by way of punishment attracting Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the disciplinary rules.

Issue (i): Whether employees allowed to continue beyond the maximum prescribed period of probation without an express order of confirmation could be deemed to have been confirmed in service.

Analysis: The service rules placed the initial probation at one year and capped the total period of probation, including extensions, at three years. The authority could, on completion of probation, confirm the employee, extend probation within the permitted limit, dispense with service for unsatisfactory work or conduct, or revert a promoted employee. Once the maximum probationary period expired, the rules no longer permitted the employee to be treated as continuing on probation by implication. Continued service after expiry of the maximum period, together with allowance of annual increments and absence of any test or further condition for confirmation, supported the inference that the appointing authority had in effect confirmed the employees.

Conclusion: The employees must be deemed to have been confirmed in their posts.

Issue (ii): Whether termination of their services after such deemed confirmation amounted to removal from service by way of punishment attracting Article 311 of the Constitution of India and the disciplinary rules.

Analysis: After deemed confirmation, the employees had a right to hold their posts. An order terminating that right could not be treated as a mere discharge in accordance with the terms of employment. Since the orders were made without departmental enquiry and without opportunity of hearing, and since the procedure under the disciplinary rules was not followed, the termination operated as punitive removal from service and attracted the constitutional safeguards governing dismissal or removal.

Conclusion: The termination orders amounted to removal from service by way of punishment and were invalid for non-compliance with Article 311 and the applicable disciplinary rules.

Final Conclusion: The employees stood confirmed by implication, and the impugned termination orders were unsustainable as punitive removals passed without the required disciplinary procedure and constitutional protection.

Ratio Decidendi: Where service rules fix a maximum probationary period, continued service beyond that limit without an express order of confirmation may justify deemed confirmation, and termination thereafter which destroys the confirmed tenure is punitive removal requiring observance of the applicable disciplinary procedure and constitutional safeguards.

---