The Allahabad High Court has ruled that terminating the service of a probationer is not considered dismissal or removal unless it is related to allegations against the individual's character or integrity, which would then be treated as a punitive action.
Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery stated:
"It is well settled that termination of services of a probationer under the Rules of the Employment or in exercise of Contractual Right is neither per se dismissal nor removal. However, if the order visits the employee against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary."
Read Also: Allahabad HC Finds Man Guilty of Criminal Contempt for Baseless Allegations Against Judges
Background of the Case
The petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher (Vyayam) in 2006 at a minority institution on probation for one year, later extended to two years. When he was not declared permanent and faced salary issues, he approached the High Court. However, his initial writ petition was dismissed as infructuous.
During this period, a chargesheet was issued against him, accusing him of failing to fulfill his responsibilities, engaging in activities detrimental to the institution, and disregarding requests for corrective action. After an inquiry, the charges were found valid, leading to his termination at the end of his probation period in January 2008.
Read Also: Supreme Court Steps In After Allahabad HC's Controversial Ruling on Attempt to Rape Case
The petitioner challenged the termination under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, arguing that:
- The principles of natural justice were violated.
- The inquiry report was not provided to him before termination.
- His reply to the chargesheet was not duly considered.
- His probation extension was unfairly denied despite no major misconduct.
The institution countered these claims, stating that:
- The petitioner was given multiple opportunities to defend himself.
- His performance was unsatisfactory, and he failed to improve despite warnings.
- The inquiry followed due process and natural justice.
The High Court held that probationary employees could be removed without inquiry if their performance is unsatisfactory. However, in this case, an inquiry was conducted, and the petitioner had been given due opportunity to respond to allegations. The Court found no procedural irregularities.
The High Court upheld the termination order, ruling that:
"The allegations against the petitioner were substantive, including failure to discharge duties diligently and lack of improvement in students' sports performance. The Court sees no reason to interfere in the termination decision."
Additionally, the Court allowed the appointment of another candidate, Waliuzzaman Khan, to the post, making his interim recruitment permanent.
Case Title: Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State of U.P. and Others [WRIT - A No. - 63857 of 2007]
