Termination during probation based on performance assessment upheld; court finds no need for prior disciplinary enquiry and dismisses appeal

Termination during probation based on employer assessment of performance does not require a prior disciplinary enquiry; the court held that summary termination for unsuitability on probation is permissible and does not necessarily attach stigma. The decision relied on an Internal Complaints Committee report, supporting documents and academic performance to conclude insufficient material of mala fide conspiracy. Because the record showed adequate material justifying non-confirmation, the court found no infirmity and refused to interfere with the termination order, dismissing the writ appeal.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether termination of a probationary appointment on the basis of assessment of performance, including an internal complaints committee report and other documents, without a prior disciplinary enquiry, is permissible; and (ii) Whether the termination order casts a stigma on the petitioner or is vitiated by mala fide action.

Analysis: The appointment carried a 12 month probation during which suitability for confirmation could be assessed and unsuitability could lead to termination. The termination order records reliance upon the internal complaints committee report, other documents and academic performance as materials for concluding unsuitability. Termination of service during probation on an assessment of performance is an administrative act distinct from a disciplinary punishment and need not be preceded by a formal disciplinary inquiry. The material before the authority included contemporaneous complaints and a sub-committee report; no material was found to establish that the action was taken out of mala fide or to oust the appointee for extraneous reasons. The order does not, on its face, import a stigmatic finding beyond an administrative assessment of non-suitability for confirmation.

Conclusion: The termination of the probationary appointment is valid; no interference is warranted and the challenge to the order fails.

---