Temporary employee termination turns on confirmation rules, notice payment timing, and protection against punitive or discriminatory discharge.

A temporary or probationary public servant does not acquire deemed confirmation merely by expiry of the probation period unless the service rules or appointment terms expressly provide for automatic confirmation. Where a termination clause allows immediate discharge only on payment in lieu of notice, that payment must accompany service of the order for the termination to operate validly. An innocuously worded termination may also be treated as punitive if it is founded on alleged misconduct after an inquiry, attracting Article 311(2). The action may further fail where the authority retains juniors but gives no satisfactory explanation for singling out one employee, rendering the termination arbitrary and discriminatory under Articles 14 and 16.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the petitioner had become a confirmed employee, or otherwise ceased to be governed by the temporary service rules, so as to render the termination invalid; (ii) whether the termination in purported exercise of the termination clause was ineffective because the monetary payment in lieu of notice was not made simultaneously with service of the order; (iii) whether the termination, though facially innocuous, was in substance punitive and attracted Article 311(2); and (iv) whether the termination was arbitrary and discriminatory in violation of Articles 14 and 16.

Issue (i): whether the petitioner had become a confirmed employee, or otherwise ceased to be governed by the temporary service rules, so as to render the termination invalid.

Analysis: The appointment documents and the surrounding service position showed that no express order of confirmation had been issued. The mere expiry of the probationary period did not by itself create automatic confirmation in the absence of a rule or term to that effect. The fact that the post was later made permanent also did not, without more, entitle the petitioner to deemed permanent absorption. The petitioner therefore remained a probationer or temporary employee for the purpose of the termination order.

Conclusion: The contention of deemed confirmation was rejected, and the petitioner was not held to be a confirmed employee.

Issue (ii): whether the termination in purported exercise of the termination clause was ineffective because the monetary payment in lieu of notice was not made simultaneously with service of the order.

Analysis: The terms of appointment expressly formed part of the conditions of service and reserved a power to terminate forthwith by making payment for the notice period. That stipulation was treated as binding and not displaced by the general service rule. The payment was not made when the order was served. The governing principle was that where termination is to operate forthwith under such a clause, the payment in lieu of notice must accompany the order.

Conclusion: The termination was invalid for non-compliance with the contractual/service term requiring simultaneous payment.

Issue (iii): whether the termination, though facially innocuous, was in substance punitive and attracted Article 311(2).

Analysis: A termination order in innocent form can still be punitive if it is founded on misconduct and follows an inquiry into alleged wrongdoing. The materials and unrebutted pleadings indicated that an inquiry had been held on a complaint relating to the petitioner's conduct, and the termination was based on that inquiry report. In substance, the alleged misconduct became the foundation of the order, so the protection of Article 311(2) was attracted.

Conclusion: The order was held to be punitive in substance and violative of Article 311(2).

Issue (iv): whether the termination was arbitrary and discriminatory in violation of Articles 14 and 16.

Analysis: The petitioner's seniority allegation and the absence of any disclosed reason for selecting only him for termination, while juniors were retained, raised a specific case of unfair discrimination. In such a situation, the authority was required to disclose the reason or motive for the action. As no satisfactory explanation was furnished, the termination was held to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

Conclusion: The termination violated Articles 14 and 16 and could not stand.

Final Conclusion: The writ petition succeeded, the impugned termination was quashed, and relief was granted only to the extent found legally sustainable, without recognising any claim to deemed confirmation.

Ratio Decidendi: A temporary or probationary public servant does not become confirmed by mere efflux of time unless the service rules or appointment terms so provide, and where termination is made under a specific termination term requiring payment in lieu of notice, that payment must accompany the order if termination is to take immediate effect; further, an innocuously worded termination will be struck down if it is in substance founded on alleged misconduct or is shown to be arbitrary and discriminatory.

---