State of Hy v. Manmohan Pahwa

oooooooooooooINoTHEoHIGHoCOURToOFoPUNJABoANDoHARYANA AToCHANDIGARH oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooCM-477-C-2023oin/and oooooRSA-2674-2002o(O&M) oooooDateoofoDecisiono:10.02.2023 StateoofoHaryanaoandoothers o oooooooooooooooooooo...Appellants oo Versusoo Dr.oManmohanoPahwa oo ooooooooooooooooooo...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLEoMR.oJUSTICEoHARSIMRANoSINGHoSETHI Present: Ms.oVibhaoTewari,oAAG,oHaryana forotheoappellant-State. Mr.oR.K.oMalik,oSenioroAdvocateowith Mr.oAdityaoDassaur,oAdvocateoforotheorespondent. *o*o* HarsimranoSinghoSethi,oJ.o(Oral) CM-477-C-2023 ooooooooooooooooooooPresentoapplicationohasobeenofiledoforofixingotheoactualodateoof hearingoinotheomainoappeal. ooooooooooooooooooooKeepingoinoviewotheoavermentsomadeoinotheoapplication,owhich areodulyosupportedobyoanoaffidavit,oapplicationoisoallowed.oMainoappealois takenoupoforohearingotodayoitself. RSA-2674-2002 Presentoregularosecondoappealohasobeenofiledobyotheoappellant-StateoofoHaryanaoagainstotheojudgmentoandodecreeoofotheotrialoCourtodated

02.11.2001obyowhich,otheosuitofiledobyotheorespondent-plaintiffoforosetting asideotheoorderodatedo19.03.1997opassedobyotheorespondent-departmentoby whichohisoservicesowereoterminated,owasoallowedoasowelloasoagainstotheoorder datedo14.03.2002opassedobyotheoLoweroAppellateoCourtobyowhich,othe judgmentoandodecreeoofotheotrialoCourtodatedo02.11.2001owasoupheld. Certainofactsoneedotoobeomentionedosooasotooappreciateothe controversyoinoaocorrectoperspective. Respondent/plaintiffowasoappointedoasoMedicaloOfficeroClass-II ono01.05.1993 oonoadhocobasis oandothereafter,otheorespondent/plaintiff competed o for o the o post o advertised o by o the o Haryana o Public o Service Commissionoandoultimatelyowasoselectedoandojoinedoonoregularobasisoas HCMS-IIoono12.04.1994.oAsoperotheoappointmentoorder,otheorespondent-plaintiffowasotooremainoonoprobationoforoaoperiodoofotwooyears,owhichocould beoextendedobyoanotheroperiodoofooneoyear.oWhileoonoprobation,othe respondent/plaintiffoowasosuspendedoono09.08.1996oandoultimatelyowhileoon probationovideoorderodatedo19.03.1997,oorderoofosuspensionowasowithdrawn andoserviceoofotheorespondent/plaintiffoowasodispensedowithowhileoheowasoon probation. Aggrieved o against o the o said o order o dated o 19.03.1997 o of dispensingotheoservicesoofotheorespondent/plaintiff,ooheohadofiledoaocivilosuit challengingotheosaidoorderodatedo19.03.1997oofodispensingohisoservicesoon theogroundothatokeepingoinoviewotheoprovisootooRuleo11(3)oofotheoHaryana CiviloMedicaloServiceso(Class-II)oRules,o1978o(inoshort,o'1978oRules')oonothe dateowhenohisoservicesowereodispensedowith,oheowasotoobeotreatedoasoa confirmedoemployeeoandonotoonoprobationo ohence,oorderorelievingothe respondent/plaintiffoofromoserviceobyotreatingohimotoobeoonoprobationoisobad beingocontraryotootheo1978oRules.o Noticeowasoissuedoinotheocivilosuitoandoappellant-Stateoodefended theoorderoonotheogroundothatokeepingoinoviewoRuleo11oofotheo1978oRulesoas welloasofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase,ootheorespondent/plaintiff wasoonoprobationoono19.03.1997ohence,oorderodatedo19.03.1997orelieving himofromoserviceoduringotheoperiodoofoprobationoisoperfectlyovalidoand correct.o Afteroconsideringotheofactsoandoevidenceowhichohadocomeoon record,otheotrialoCourtocameotootheoconclusionothatoasotheorespondent/plaintiff wasoappointedoasoHCMS-IIoono12.04.1994oandoheowasoonoprobationoforoa periodoofo02oyearsothough,oextendableobyoperiodoofooneoyearobutoasonooorder wasopassedowithinoaoperiodoofosixomonthsoonotheoexpiryoofoprobationoperiod ofo02oyearsosooasotooextendotheoperiodoofoprobation,otheorespondent/plaintiff isodeemedotoobeoconfirmedoinoserviceokeepingoinoviewotheoRuleo11(2)oofothe 1978oRulesohence,orelievingotheorespondent/plaintiffobyotreatingohimoasoa probationerowasobad.oThough,otheoorderoextendingotheoperiodoofoprobation wasoEx.D-1odatedo06.11.1996, oo butotheosaidoorderoofoextensionowasonot acceptedobyotheotrialoCourtoonotheogroundothatoonlyophotocopyoofotheosaid orderoextendingoprobationowasoproducedoandotheosameowasopassedoafterothe sixomonthsoofocompletionoofo02oyears.oVideojudgmentoandodecreeodated

02.11.2001oofotheotrialoCourt,otheosuitowasodecreedoandotheoimpugnedoorder dated o 19.03.1997 o was o set o aside o with o the o direction o to o the o appellant-department o that o respondent/plaintiff o be o reinstated o in o service o with o all consequentialobenefits.o Feeling o aggrieved o against o the o said o order, o appellant-State preferredoanoappealobeforeotheoLoweroAppellateoCourt,owhichoalsoocameoto beodecidedoono14.03.2002oandotheoLoweroAppellateoCourtowhileointerpreting Ruleo11(2)oofotheo1978oRulesohasoheldothatoasothereowasonooextensionoofothe probationowithinoaoperiodoofosixomonthsoofotheoexpiryoofofirstotwooyears periodoofoprobation,obyodeemingofiction,otheorespondent/plaintiffobecameoa confirmedoemployeeohence,oheocouldonotohaveobeenodismissedofromoservice byotreatingohimotoobeoaoprobationeroandotheojudgmentoandodecreeodated

02.11.2001oofotheotrialoCourtowasoupheld.oHence,otheopresentoregularosecond appealobyotheoappellant-State. Noticeoofomotionowasoissuedoand,othereafter,opresentoregular secondooappealowasoadmittedoandotheoexecutionoofotheodecreeoofotheoCourts belowowasostayed. Learnedocounseloforotheoappellant-StateoarguesothatotheoCourts belowoohaveonotoappreciatedotheofactsoinoaocorrectoperspectiveosooasotooarrive at o a o correct o interpretation o of o Rule o 11 o of o the o 1978 o Rules o and o the interpretationoextendedobyotheoCourtsobelowoisorenderedowithoutoconsidering theoactualofactsorelatedotootheopresentocase.oLearnedocounseloforothe appellant-Stateosubmitsothatoitoisoanoadmittedocaseothatoduringotheoperiodoof probationotheorespondent/plaintiffowasosuspendedoandoheoremainedounder suspensionotillohisoservicesowereodispensedowithovideoorderodatedo19.03.1997 hence,ogivingobenefitoofoprovisootooRuleo11o(3)oofo1978oRulesoinofavouroof theorespondent/plaintiffoofodeemedoconfirmationowhileounderosuspension wasobadoasonooemployeeowhoowasounderosuspensionoduringotheoperiodoof probationocanobeodeemedotoobeoconfirmedoemployeeobyotheooperationoof provisootooRuleo11(3)oofo1978oRules.oHence,ojudgmentoandodecreeoofothe Furtheroargumentoofotheolearnedocounseloforotheoappellant-State is o that o it o is o an o admitted o fact o that o period o of o probation o of o the respondent/plaintiffooowasoextendedovideoorderodatedoo06.11.1996oatowhich timeotheorespondent/plaintiffoowasounderosuspensionowhichoorderowasonever challengedobyotheorespondent-plaintiffoatoanyogivenopointoofotimeoandosame wasoalsoonotoimpugnedoinotheosuit,owhichofactohasobeenoignoredoandonot takenointooaccountobyotheoCourtsobelowowhileograntingodeemedoconfirmation inofavouroofotheorespondent-plaintiff. Learnedocounseloforotheoappellant-Stateofurtherosubmitsothat keepingoinoviewotheofactsoandocircumstancesonoticedohereinbefore,ofindings ofotheoCourtsobelowoareoperverse,okeepingoinoviewotheoevidenceowhichohad comeoonorecordoandooRuleo11oofotheo1978oRulesohasonotobeenointerpretedoby theoCourtsobelowoinoaomannerorequired,okeepingoinoviewotheofactsoand circumstancesoofotheopresentocase,ohence,ootheojudgmentsoandodecreesoofothe Courtsobelowoareoliableotoobeosetoaside. LearnedoSeniorocounseloforotheorespondent/plaintiffoarguesothat argumentsowhichoareobeingoraisedobyotheolearnedocounseloforotheoappellant-StateoareoliableotoobeorejectedoonotheogroundothatoRuleo11oofotheo1978orules hasobeenotakenointooaccountobyotheoCourtsobelowoandohasobeenogivenoa meaningfulointerpretationowhichoreflectsouponoplainoreadingoofotheoruleoin questionoandoonceothereowasonooorderoofoextensionoofoprobationoperiodoafter theoperiodoofosixomonthsoonocompletionoofofirstotwooyearsoofoprobation,oan employeeoisodeemedotoobeoconfirmedoonotheogroundothatoprobationowas completedosatisfactorilyobyotheoemployeeoconcernedoandoasotheoorder extendingotheoperiodoofoprobationowasoonlyopassedoinoNovember,o1996 whichoperiodowasobeyondosixomonthsofromotwooyearsoofoprobationoperiodoas envisagedounderoruleo11(3)oprovisooofo1978oRulesoohence,otheointerpretation givenobyotheoCourtsobelowothatotheorespondent/plaintiffowasodeemedotoobeoa confirmedoemployeeoonotheodateowhenoheowasorelievedoono19.03.1997oisoin consonanceowitholawoandonooorderocouldohaveobeenopassedobyotheoemployer byotreatingorespondent/plaintiffoonoprobationohence,otheoorderopassedobyothe Courtobelowoisoliableotoobeoupheld.o LearnedoSeniorocounseloforotheorespondent/plaintiffo ofurther arguesothatotheoservicesoofotheorespondent-plaintiffowereodispensedowithoas thereowereocomplaintsoagainstotheorespondent/plaintiffohowever,oitowas incumbentouponotheodepartmentotooenquireointoothoseocomplaintsoandoonly thereafterotakeoanoappropriateodecisionobutoinotheopresentocase,oorderodated

19.03.1997orelievingotheorespondent/plaintiffofromoservicesowasopassed simpliciter,o which ois o punitive o in o nature o so o as o to o cause oprejudice o to respondent/plaintiffoohence,otheosaidoorderocannotobeosustainedoinoviewoofothe settledoprincipleoofolaw. Iohaveoheardolearnedocounseloforotheopartiesoandohaveogone throughotheorecordowithotheiroableoassistance. Certain o facts, o which o have o gone o unrebutted, o are o that o the respondent/plaintiffowasoappointedoonoregularobasisoafterobeingoselectedoby theoHaryanaoPublicoServiceoCommissionoono12.04.1994.oFurtheroitois concededopositionothatorespondent/plaintiffo owasoputoonoprobationoforoa periodoofo02oyears,owhichoperiodowasoextendableobyoanotheroperiodoofoone year.oItoisoalsooaoconcededopositionothatoonotheodate,owhenoorderodispensing theoservicesoofotheorespondent/plaintiffowasopassed,otheomaximumoperiodoof probationoprescribedounderoRuleso1978oi.e.o03oyears,ohadonotoexpired.oThe onlyoquestionowhichoneedsotoobeoadjudicatedoinotheopresentocaseoisowhether inotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase,okeepingoinoviewoRuleo11 ofotheo1978oRules,owhichodealsowithotheoprobationeroandotheoconfirmationoof theoprobationer,orespondent/plaintiffooisotoobeotreatedoasodeemedoconfirmed employeeooronotoonotheodateowhenoimpugnedoorderodispensingotheoservices ofotheorespondent-plaintiffodatedo19.03.1997owasopassed. Inoorderotooappreciateotheocontentionoofobothotheoparties,oRule 11oofotheo1978oRules,owhichoisoapplicableoinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoof theopresentocaseoisoreproducedofororeadyoreference:-"11.oProbation:-(1)oPersonsoappointedoto theopostsoinotheoserviceoremainoonoprobation foroaoperiodoofotwooyears: Providedothat-

(a)oanyoperiodoafterosuchoappointmentospend onodeputationocorrespondingooroaohigheropost shallocountotowardsotheoperiodoofoprobation;

(b)oanyoperiodoofoofficiatingoappointment shall o be o reckoned o as o period o spent o on probation, o but o no o person o who o has o so officiatedoshall,oonotheocompletionoofothe prescribedoperiodoofoprobation,obeoentitledoto beoconfirmedounlessoheoisoappointedoagainstoa permanentovacancy.

(2) o If, o in o the o opinion o of o the o appointing authority,otheoworkooroconductoofoaoperson during o the o period o of o probation o is o not satisfactory,oitomayodispenseowithohisoservice or o extend o his o period o of o probation o and thereafteropassosuchoordersoasoitocouldohave passedoonotheoexpiryoofotheofirstoperiodoof probation. Providedothatotheototaloperiodoofoprobation includingoextension,oifoanyoshallonotoexceed threeoyears. o (3)oOnotheocompletionoofotheoperiodoof probation o of o a o person, o the o appointing authorityomay,oifohisoworkooroconductohas,oin itsoopinion,obeenosatisfactory:-o

(i)oconfirmosuchopersonofromotheodateoofohis appointment, o if o appointed o against o a permanentovacancy.

(ii)oconfirmosuchopersonofromotheodateofrom which o a o permanent o vacancy o occurs, o if appointedoagainstoaotemporaryovacancy:oor

(iii) o declare o that o he o has o competed o his probation o satisfactory, o if o there o is o no permanentovacancy; Providedothatoifoneitheroofotheoaboveothree decisionsoisotakenowithin,osixomonthsoofothe expiryoofotheooriginalooroextendedoperiodoof probation,oifoany,othenoatotheoexpiryoofothe aforesaid o six o months o period o the o officer concerned o would o be o deemed o to o have satisfactorily o completed o his o period o of probation." Aobareoperusaloofotheoaboveoreproducedoruleowouldoshowothatoas peroRuleo11(1),oanoemployeeoappointedowilloremainoonoprobationoforoa periodoofotwooyears. AsoperoRuleo11(2),oifoinotheoopinionoofotheoappointingoauthority theoworkoandoconductoofotheopersonoduringoprobationoisonotosatisfactory,othe serviceoofotheoprobationerocanobeodispensedowithooroprobationoperiodocanobe extendedobutomaximumoperiodoofoprobationowillonotoexceedothreeoyearsoand inosuchocaseotheoemployerowilloretainotheorightotoodispenseowithotheoservices ofotheoprobationeroasoitohadouponocompletionoofoinitialoprobationoperiodoof twooyears. Asoperoruleo11(3),oifoonocompletionoofotheooriginaloprobation periodoofotwooyearsoorotheoextendedoperiodoofoprobationotheoappointing authorityoisoofotheoopinionothatoworkoandoconductoofotheopersonoduringothe probationowasosatisfactory,oappropriateoorderowillobeopassedosooasotootake anyoofotheodecisionomentionedoinoRuleo11(3)o(i)otoo(iii).oAsoperoproviso,oin caseonooorderoisopassedoquaooRuleo11(3)o(i)otoo(iii)owithinoaoperiodoofosix monthsoofoexpiryoofooriginalooroextendedoperiodoofoprobation,oanoemployee concernedowillobeodeemedotoohaveosatisfactorilyocompletedoperiodoof probation. TheocorrectointerpretationoofotheoRuleo11owhichodealsowith periodoofoprobationoisothatooriginaloperiodoofoprobationoisoofotwooyearsoandoin caseotheoemployee'soworkoandoconductoisonotosatisfactory,otheosameocanobe extendedobutomaximumoperiodoofoprobationowillonotoexceedothreeoyearsoand asoperoprovisootooRuleo11(3)oinocaseoonocompletionoofooriginaloperiodoof probationoofotwooyearsoofotheoextendedoperiodoofoprobationoappointing authorityofindsotheoworkoandoconductoofoanoemployeeotoobeosatisfactoryoand stillonooorderoisopassedocontraryotootheoopinionowithoregardotootheoworkoand conductoofoanoemployeeobeingosatisfactoryowithinoaoperiodoofosixomonthsoof completionoofoperiodoofotwooyearsoofoextendedoperiodoofoprobation,oan employeeoisodeemedotoobeoconfirmedoinoservice. ThisoCourtoisorequiredotooansweroasotoowhetheroinotheofactsoand circumstancesoofotheopresentocase,otheoclaimoofotheorespondent-plaintiffothat hisocaseoisocoveredounderoprovisootooRuleo11(3)oofotheo1978oRulesoqua deemedoconfirmationoowhenowithinoaoperiodoofosixomonthsoafterocompletion ofotwooyearsoofoperiodoofoprobationoheowasosuspendedoandowhether suspendedoemployeeocanobeodeemedotoohaveobeenooconfirmedoemployeeoor notobyoapplicationoofotheosaidoprovisootooRuleo11(3)oofotheo1978oRulesoby treatingothatohisoperiodoofoprobationowasosatisfactorilyocleared. Itoisoaoconcededopositionothatovideoorderodatedo09.08.1996 respondent/plaintiffowasosuspendedofromohisoservice.oTheonextoquestion whichoarisesoisowhetheroanoemployee,owhoohasobeenoputounderosuspension canoclaimothatothereoisonothingoadverseoagainstohim/herosooasotooextendothe benefitoofodeemedoconfirmationoasoenvisagedoinoRuleo11(3)oprovisooofo1978 Rules. oAobareoperusaloofoRuleo11(3)owouldoshowothatosameorelatesoto onlyoaopersonowhoseoworkoandoconductohasobeenofoundotoobeosatisfactoryoby theoemployeroonocompletionoofoinitialoperiodoofoprobationoofotwooyearsooand nothingoadverseohasocomeoagainstotheoemployeeowithinoaoperiodoofotwooyears andosixomonthsoofoprobation.oTheowordsoinoRuleo11(3)oofo1978oRulesoareothat "whereoanoappointingoauthorityoisoofotheoopinionothatoconductoofothe employeeoiso"satisfactory"ohence,otheoopinionoofotheoemployerounderotheorule hasotoobeothatothereoisonothingoadverseoagainstotheoemployeeoconcerned. o Inotheopresentocase,otheosaidoruleo11(3)oofo1978oRulesowillohave nooapplicationoforotheoreasonothatootheorespondent/plaintiffowasosuspended fromoserviceovideoorderodatedo09.08.1996,owhichoperiodofallsowithinosix monthsouponotheoexpiryoofotheooriginaloperiodoofoprobationoofotwooyears. Evenoduringotheoinitialoperiodoofoprobationoofotwooyears,othereowere complaintsoagainstotheorespondent/plaintiffo ohence,oonceotheodepartment itselfohasosuspendedotheorespondent/plaintiffofromoserviceowithinoaoperiodoof sixomonthsoofocompletionoofotwooyearsoofoprobation,ootheoRuleo11(2)oofothe 1978oRulesowillocomeointoooperationoratherothanoRuleo11(3)oofotheo1978 Rules.oProvisootooClauseo11(3)oofotheo1978oRulesowilloonlyocomeointo operationoinocaseothereoisonothingoadverseoagainstotheoemployeeoafterothe periodoofo02oyearsoandosixomonthsoofoperiodoofoprobationocoupledowithothe factothatothereoisonooadverseoorder/actionobyotheoemployeroagainstothe probationerotoosuggestothatotheoworkoandoconductoofotheoprobationerowasonot satisfactory.oInotheopresentocase,ofactsoareonotosuchothatowithinoaoperiodoofo02 yearsoandosixomonthsoofoprobationoperiod,othereowasonooorderobyothe authorityosooasotooindicateothatoworkoandoconductoofotheorespondent-/plaintiff wasosatisfactoryoasoconcededlyotheorespondent/plaintiffowasosuspendedoand thereowereocomplaintsoagainstotheoorespondent/plaintiff. Courtsobelowowhileorecordingotheofindingsoheldothatoasothere wasonooorderoextendingotheoperiodoofoprobationoofotheorespondent-plaintiff afterotheoperiodoofotwooyearsoandosixomonthsohence,oitoisodeemedothatothe workoandoconductoofotheorespondent/plaintiffowasosatisfactoryotoobeotreated asodeemedoconfirmationounderoRuleo11o(3)oofotheo1978oRulesobutoCourts belowohaveofailedotooconsiderotheorelevantofactothatowhereoanoemployee,owho isoonoprobationoandoisoalsoosuspendedoowhetherohis/heroworkoandoconduct canobeotreatedoasosatisfactoryosooasotooconsiderotheoclaimounderotheoproviso ofoRuleo11(3)osooasotoograntodeemedooconfirmationounderoRuleo11(3)oofothe 1978oRules. o Inothisocaseowhereorespondent/plaintiffoisounderosuspension, Ruleo11(2)oofotheo1978oRulesowillobeoapplicable.oAobareoreadingoofoRuleo11 ofo1978oRulesoshowothatoRuleo11(3)oofotheo1978oRulesoisoquaoanoemployee whereoemployeroisoofotheoviewothatotheoworkoandoconductoofotheoemployee concernedoisosatisfactory.oNothingohasobeenobroughtoonorecordobyothe respondent/plaintiffotooproveothatoanyosuchoindicationowasoeverogivenobyothe department o or o any o order o was o passed o by o the o appellant-State o qua respondent/plaintiffo whileoheowas oin oserviceothato theoservices oofothe respondent/plaintiffowereotreatedotoobeosatisfactoryoonoexpiryoofotwooyears sooasotoobeograntotheorespondent/plaintiffotheobenefitoofoprovisootooRuleo11(3) ofotheo1978oRulesoofodeemedoconfirmation. Ratherofactsoareotootheocontrary.oAsothereowereocomplaints againstotheorespondent/plaintiffoofobeingoinvolvedoinoprivateopracticeoeven whileoonooriginaloperiodoofotwooyearsoofoprobation,otheorespondent/plaintiff wasoplacedounderosuspensionowithinotwooyearsoandosixomonthsoofostartoof probationoperiodohence,otheofindingsorecordedobyotheoCourtsobelowoby interpretingoprovisootooRuleo11(3)oofo1978oRulesothatoafterocompletingotwo yearsoofoprobationoasonooorderoextendingotheoprobationowasopassedowithin periodoofoo06omonthsoafteroexpiryoofo02oyearsoofoprobation,otheosameowill resultoinodeemedoconfirmation,oisoanoincorrectointerpretationoofoRuleo11(3)oof 1978oRulesoasorelevantofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocaseohave beenoignoredowhileorecordingotheosaidofinding. Ifotheointerpretationoasobeingogivenobyolearnedocounseloforothe respondent-plaintiffoisoaccepted,oevenoanoemployee,owhooisounderosuspension willoclaimothatoasonooorderohasobeenopassedoextendingoperiodoofoprobation, hisoworkoandoconductoisotoobeotreatedoasosatisfactoryosooasotooclaimobenefit underooRuleo11(3).oWhileorecordingotheofindingothatoaoprobationeroemployee isodeemedoconfirmedounderoprovisootooRuleo11(3)oofo1978oRules,oaoCourtohas toorecordoaofindingothatonotoonlyotheoemployerowasosatisfiedoquaoworkoand conductoofoprobationeroemployeeobutofindingoisoalsootoobeorecordedothat thereoisonothingoadverseoagainstoprobationerosooasotoopointooutothatothereowas noopremiseouponowhichoitocouldobeoassumedothatotheoemployerowasonot satisfiedowithotheoworkoandoconductoofotheoprobationer.oProvisootooRule 11(3)ograntingodeemedoconfirmationocanoonlyobeobroughtointoooperationoin caseoatotheorelevantotimeothereoisonothingoagainstotheoprobationeroonorecord quaohisoworkoandoconduct. Inotheopresentocase,ooitoisoaoconcededopositionothatowithinoperiod ofotwooyearsoofoprobation,oothereowereocomplaintsoagainstotheorespondent-plaintiffooandouponocompletionoofotwooyearsoofoprobation,oheowasosuspended whichoactoonotheopartoofotheodepartmentoclearlyoshowsothatoaccordingoto department, o work o and o conduct o of o the o respondent-plaintiff o was o not satisfactoryosooasotooconfirmohim.oHence.oRuleo11(2)oofotheo1978oRulesoowill beoapplicableoandonotoRuleo11(3),owhichoisoonlyoapplicableowhereoan employeroisosatisfiedoquaotheoworkoandoconductoofoanoemployeeoupon completionoofoperiodoofotwooyearsoofoprobationoofotheoextendedoperiodoof probation.oHence,obenefitobeingoclaimedobyotheorespondent-plaintiffounder provisoootooRuleo11(3)oofo1978oRulesoisonotoadmissibleotootheorespondent-plaintiff,ookeepingoinoviewotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase whichohaveobeenonoticedohereinbeforeohence,ofindingsowhichohaveobeen recordedobyotheoCourtsobelowoholdingothatodespiteotheofactothatorespondent-plaintiffo owasounderosuspension,oheowillobeodeemedotoobeoconfirmed employeeoevenoduringotheosuspensionoperiod,ocannotobeosustainedooroupheld. Inotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase,oRuleo11(2)oofo1978oRules willobeoapplicableoandototaloperiodoofoprobationowillobeo03oyear.oSinceoonothe dateowhenotheoservicesoofotheorespondent-plaintiffowereodispensedowithohe wasounderosuspensionoandoyetotoocompleteothreeoyearsoofoservice,otheoorder relievingotheorespondent/plaintiffobyoorderosimpliciteroduringotheoprobation isovalid. Another o argument o raised o by o the o learned o Senior o counsel appearingoforotheorespondent-plaintiffooisothatotheoimpugnedoorderorelieving theorespondent-plaintiffofromoserviceobyotreatingohimoonoprobationocannotobe sustainedoasoconcededlyothereowereocomplaintsoagainstotheorespondent-plaintiff,oowhichowereoenquiredointoothough,onotoprovedostilloheohasobeen relievedoduringotheoperiodoofoprobationohence,oonceothereowereocomplaints, theoorderopassedoagainstotheorespondent-plaintiffoisotoobeotreatedopunitiveoin natureoandostigmaticoandotheosameoisoliableotoobeosetoaside. LearnedoSeniorocounseloforotheorespondent-plaintiffofurther submitsothatodespiteotheoaboveomentionedofactsoquaotheocomplaints,oifothe departmento ostillowantedotoorelyouponothoseocomplaints,othenoitowas incumbentouponotheorespondent-departmentotooholdoanoenquiryointoothose allegationsoandoactionocouldohaveoonlyobeotakenoinocaseoallegationsoare provedoagainstotheorespondent-plaintiff.o Theoquestionowhichoarisesoisowhetheroonceothereoareocomplaints againstotheoprobationer,otheodepartmentoisosupposedotooholdoanoenquiryoto enquireointootheoallegationsoallegedoorotheoorderocanobeopassedosimpliciter afteroarrivingoatoaoparticularoconclusionoasoenvisagedounderoRuleo11o(2)oof theo1978oRules.o SaidoquestionohasoalreadyobeenoansweredobyoHon'bleoSupreme CourtoofoIndiaomoreothanoonceooandotheosameoisonoolongeroresointegra.o In oCivil o Appeal o No.2868-2012o titled o as oHead o Master LawrenceoSchooloLovedaleovs.oJayanthioRaghuoandoanotherooooodecidedoon

16.03.2012oowhereinoserviceoofoanoemployeeowhoowasoonoprobationowas terminatedowithoutoholdingoanoenquiryointootheoallegations,otheoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoheldothatotheoprobationerowilloonlyogetotheostatusoof deemedoconfirmationoafterocompletingomaximumoperiodoofoprobationoand priorotoothatoevenoif,othereoareosomeoallegations,oitoisonotoincumbentouponothe authorityoconcernedotooholdoanoenquiryobeforeoarrivingoatoaoconclusionooqua dispensing o ofoserviceoofotheoprobationer.oRelevant oparagraphs oofothe judgmentoareoasounder:- "Bearingoinomindotheoaforesaidoconceptual meaning,owhenotheolanguageoemployedounderoRule

4.9oisoscrutinised,oitocanosafelyobeoconcludedothatothe entitlement o to o continue o till o the o age o of superannuation,oi.e.,o55oyears,oisonotoabsolute.oThe poweroandorightotooremoveoisonotoobliterated.oThe status o of o confirmation o has o to o be o earned o and conferred.oHadotheoruleomakingoauthorityo(1986)o3 SCC o91ointendedo that othereowouldobeo automatic confirmation,oRuleo4.9owouldohaveobeenocouchedoin aodifferentolanguage.oThatobeingonotoso,otheowider interpretationocannotobeoplacedoonotheoRuleotooinfer thatotheoprobationerogetsotheostatusoofoaodeemed confirmedoemployeeoafteroexpiryoofothreeoyearsoof probationaryoperiodoasothatowouldodefeatotheobasic purpose o and o intent o of o the o Rule o which o clearly postulates o"if o confirmed".o Ao confirmation,o aso is demonstrableofromotheolanguageoemployedoinothe Rule,odoesonotooccurowithoeffluxoofotime.oAsoitoisAARTI SHARMA hedgedobyoaocondition,oanoaffirmativeooropositiveoact isotheorequisiteobyotheoemployer.oInoouroconsidered opinion,oanoorderoofoconfirmationoisorequiredotoobe passed.oTheoDivisionoBenchohasoclearlyoflawedoby associating o the o words o `if o confirmed' o with o the entitlementoofotheoageoofosuperannuationowithout appreciatingothatotheouseoofotheosaidowordsoasoa fundamental o qualifier o negatives o deemed confirmation.oThus,otheoirresistibleoconclusionoisothat theopresentocaseowouldosquarelyofalloinotheolastolineoof casesoasohasobeenoenumeratedoinoparagrapho11oof SatyaoNarayanoJhavero(supra)oand,otherefore,othe principleoofodeemedoconfirmationoisonotoattracted.

24.oInotheoresult,otheoappealoisoallowedoandotheojudgment andoorderopassedobyotheoHighoCourtoareosetoasideoto theoextentothatotheofirstorespondentohadoacquiredothe statusoofoconfirmedoemployeeoand,otherefore,oholding ofoenquiryoisoimperative.oAsofaroasotheoconclusion recordedobyotheoDivisionoBenchothatonoostigmaowas castoonotheorespondentoisoconcerned,otheosameohaving goneooounchallenged,otheoorderoinothatoregardoisonot disturbed.oTheopartiesoshallobearotheirorespective costs." InoCiviloAppealoNo.o8933-34oofo2017otitledoasoRajasthanoHigh Courtovs.oVedoPriyaoandoanother odecidedoono18.03.2020otheoHon'ble SupremeoCourtoofoIndiaoheldothatoumbrellaoofoArticleo311oofotheoConstitution ofoIndiaoisoonlyoadmissibleotooaoconfirmedoemployeeoandonototooaoprobationer Inotheosaidocase,owhereotheoprobationer,owhoowasoaoJudicialoMagistrateowas dismissedoonotheobasisoofocomplaintsoofomisdemeanouroandocorruption,othe Hon'bleosupremeoCourtoofoIndia,oafteroconsideringotheorelevantolawoonothe saidosubjectoheldoasounder:- "26.Since Respondent No.1 has failed to establish that the High Court intended or has actually punished him for any defined misconduct, it stands crystallized that the object of the High Court on the administrative side was to verify the suitability and not enquire into the allegations against the first respondent. Independently also, we do not find that the foundation was the allegations but it was based upon a holistic assessment of the respondent's service record. Even taking an effectsbased approach, Page | 14 we do not feel that the order of non-confirmation or the preceding circumstances would prejudice the respondent, meriting a higher procedural requirement." @$rther,otheosa(eo?$estionoofolawowasoa'ainoanswere oby Hon<bleoS$pre(eo*o$rtoofo5n iaowhileopassin'oor eroin oCivilo !!eal "o.,$*+&)**)otitle oasoStateoo(oti./oandoothersovs.o sho1o2umaro e"i e ono-/.-,.,++6owherein,oitohasobeenohel othatowhereotheoor eropasse oa'ainst theoprobationeroisoanoor erosi(pli"iter,othenoe!enoif,otheoosai oor eroisobase $ponoso(eo"o(plaints,otheosa(eo"annotobeotreate oaso!iolati!eoofoprin"iples ofonat$ralo)$sti"eoorotheosa(eo"annotobeotreate oasop$niti!eoinonat$reosooasoto 'i!eoanyo"a$seoofoa"tionotootheoprobationer.oRele!antopara'raphoofothe )$ '(entoisoaso$n er:- "6.The order of termination simpliciter as referred above does not disclose any stigma. Whether a complaint is the motive leading to the termination simpliciter or it is the foundation of the termination order has been considered by this Court and held consistently by this Court that when there is no inquiry resulting in the termination order the RSA-2674-2002o(O&M) -1:- complaint is the motive of the order of termination on the other hand whether the complaint leads to the inquiry resulting the termination order it is the foundation of the order of termination. This Court in a recent decision in the case of State of Haryana and Anr. v. Satyender Singh Rathore, . After discussing the various decisions of this Court held in paragraph 9 of the judgment as under : "9. We find the High Court did not consider the question of stigma or the effect of any enquiry held before the order of termination was passed. The question whether the enquiry purportedly held provided the motive or the foundation was required to be considered by the High Court in detail. That has not been done. The question whether the termination of service is simpliciter or punitive has been examined in several cases e.g. Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, , and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corporation Ltd., . An order of termination simpliciter passed during the period of probation has been generating undying debate. The recent two decisions of this Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, , and Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, , after survey of most of the earlier decisions touching the question observed as to when an order of termination can be treated as simpliciter and when it can be treated as punitive and when a stigma is said to be attached to an employee discharged during the period of probation. The learned counsel on either side referred to and relied on these decisions either in support of their respective contentions or to RSA-2674-2002o(O&M) -1;- distinguish them for the purpose of application of the principles stated therein to the facts of the present case. In the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) after referring to various decisions it was indicated as to when a simple order of termination is to be treated as "founded" on the allegations of Page 2460 misconduct and when complaints could be only as a motive for passing such a simple order of termination. In para 21 of the said judgment a distinction is explained thus: (SCC pp. 71-72) "21. If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as 'founded' on the allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid." From a long line of decisions it appears to us that whether an order of termination is simpliciter or punitive has ultimately to be decided having due regard to the facts and circumstances of each case. Many a times the distinction between the foundation and motive in relation to an order of termination eitheroisothinoorooverlapping.oItomayobeodifficult eitherotoocategoriseooroclassifyostrictlyoordersoof terminationosimpliciterofallingoinooneoorotheoother category,obasedoonomisconductoasofoundationofor passingotheoorderoofoterminationosimpliciterooroon motiveoonotheogroundoofounsuitabilityotoocontinueoin service." Keeping o in o view o the o settled o principle o of o law o noticed hereinbefore,otheoargumentoofotheolearnedoSeniorocounseloforotheorespondent-plaintiffothatoonceoinotheopreliminaryoenquiry,otheocomplaintsoagainstothe respondent-plaintiffoareofoundotoobeoincorrect,oitowasooincumbentouponothe respondentotooholdoaoregularoenquiryoquaotheosaidoallegationsobeforeotaking anyoactionoagainstotheorespondent/plaintiff,ocannotobeoaccepted. Further,oinoviewotheojudgmentoofotheoHon'bleoSupremeoCourtoof IndiaoinoCiviloAppealoNo.672-2001otitledoasoMathewoP.oThomasovs.oKerala StateoCiviloSupplyoCorpn.oLtdoandoothersodecidedoono19.02.2003oowherein, itohasobeenoheldothatoevenoif,othereowereocomplaintsoagainstotheoemployee concernedostillotheoemployerowasowellowithinoitsorightotoopassoanoorderoof terminationoduringotheoperiodoofoprobationoandoitoisotheodiscretionoofothe employer o to o take o disciplinaryo action o or o to o discharge o the o probationer simpliciterowithoutoholdingoanyoenquiryointootheocharges. Relevant paragraphsoofotheojudgmentoareoasounder:- "10.Paraso1otoo3oofotheoshow-causeonoticeoreflect aboutotheounsatisfactoryoperformanceoofotheodutyoof theoappellant.oParaso4oando5oofotheoshow-causeonotice wereonototakenointooconsiderationoinopassingotheoorder ofoterminationoofoservicesoasoisoevidentofromothe terminationoorderoalthoughoreferenceoisomadeotoothe show-causeonotice.oTheolastoparaoofotheoshow-cause noticeoalsooindicatesothatotheoactionowasoproposedoin termsoof oclause o2o of o theo ordero of o appointment, namely,oterminatingotheoservicesoduringoprobationary period.oTheoorderoofoterminationoofoservicesorefersoto relevantoclauseoinotheoorderoof oappointmentoand explanationogivenobyotheoappellantotootheoshow-cause notice.oTheolastoparagraphoofotheosaidoorderoshows thatohisoexplanationowasofoundounsatisfactory.oThe appellantohadowrongfullyorecommendedoacceptance ofobadostockonotoonceobutoseveralotimes;oasosuchoit wasoheldothatohisoservicesohaveobeenounsatisfactory. Hence,otheoorderoofoterminationowasopassed.oFrom this o order o of o termination, o it o is o clear o that o the respondentsodidonotorelyoonoparaso4oando5oofothe show-cause o notice. o The o Division o Bench o in o the impugned o judgment, o after o perusal o of o the o files observedothatotheoappointingoauthorityohadoabandoned thoseochargesoandoconcentratedoonlyoonotheolapses committed o by o the o appellant o in o wrongfully recommendingoacceptanceoofobadostock.oWeohaveono goodoreasonotoodifferowithothisofindingorecordedoby theoDivisionoBenchoafteroperusaloofotheorelevantofiles andorecords.oEvenootherwise,oparaso4oando5oofothe show-o cause o notice o stand o withdrawn o as o per o the directionogivenobyotheoHighoCourt.oThisobeingothe position,onooprejudiceoisocausedotootheoappellantoto complainothatoHighoCourtohasoexceededoitsopoweroto judicialoreviewowhenosuchoaodeletionoofoparaso4oando5 fromotheoshow-ocauseonoticeoisotootheobenefitoand advantageoofotheoappellant.oThisoalsooprotectsothe appellantofromoanyoadverseoaffectowhenoheoseeks employment o elsewhere o and o prospective o employer mayonotohaveoanyogroundotootakeoadverseoviewoofothe allegedomisconductocontainedoinoparaso4oando5oofothe show-causeonotice.

11.oAnoorderoofoterminationosimplicitoropassedoduring theoperiodoofoprobationohasobeenogeneratingoundying debate. o The o recent o two o decisions o of o this o Court inoDeeptioPrakashoBanerjeeovs.oSatyendraoNathoBose NationaloCentreoforo Basic oSciences,o Calcuttaoand otherso[(1999)o3oSCCo60]oandoPavanendraoNarayan Vermaovs.oSanjayoGandhioPGIoofoMedicaloSciences andoanothero[(2002)o1oSCCo520],oafterosurveyoofomost of o the o earlier o decisions o touching o the o question observedoasotoowhenoanoorderoofoterminationocanobe treatedoasosimplicitoroandowhenoitocanobeotreatedoas punitiveoandowhenoaostigmaoisosaidotoobeoattachedoto anoemployeeodischargedoduringoperiodoofoprobation. Theolearnedocounseloonoeitherosideoreferredotooand reliedoonotheseodecisionsoeitheroinosupportoofotheir respectiveocontentionsoorotoodistinguishothemoforothe purposeoofoapplicationoofotheoprinciplesostatedotherein tootheofactsoofotheopresentocase.oInotheocaseoofoDeepti PrakashoBanerjeeo(supra),oafteroreferringotoovarious decisionsoindicatedoasotoowhenoaosimpleoorderoof terminationoisotoobeotreatedoaso"founded"oonothe allegationsoofomisconductoandowhenocomplaintsocould beoonlyoasomotiveoforopassingosuchoaosimpleoorderoof termination.o Ino para o21 o of othe osaid o judgmento a distinctionoisoexplained,othus:o- "21.oIfofindingsowereoarrivedoatoinoanoenquiryoasoto misconduct,obehindotheobackoofotheoofficeroorowithout aoregularodepartmentaloenquiry,otheosimpleoorderoof terminationoisotoobeotreatedoaso"founded"oonothe allegationsoandowillobeobad.oButoifotheoenquiryowas not o held, o no o findings o were o arrived o at o and o the employerowasonotoinclinedotooconductoanoenquiryobut, atotheosameotime,oheodidonotowantotoocontinueothe employeeoagainstowhomothereowereocomplaints,oit wouldoonlyobeoaocaseoofomotiveoandotheoorderowould notobeobad.oSimilaroisotheopositionoifotheoemployerodid notowantotooenquireointootheotruthoofotheoallegations becauseoofodelayoinoregularodepartmentaloproceedings oroheowasodoubtfuloaboutosecuringoadequateoevidence. Inosuchoaocircumstance,otheoallegationsowouldobeoa motiveoandonototheofoundationoandotheosimpleoorder ofoterminationowouldobeovalid." Fromolongolineoofodecisionsoitoappearsotoousowhether anoorderoofoterminationoisosimplicitorooropunitiveohas ultimatelyotoobeodecidedohavingodueoregardotoothe factsoandocircumstancesoofoeachocase.oManyoaotimes theodistinctionobetweenotheofoundationoandomotiveoin relationotooanoorderoofoterminationoeitheroisothinoor overlapping.oItomayobeodifficultoeitherotoocategorizeoor classifyo strictlyo orders o of o termination o simplicitor falling o in o one o or o the o other o category, o based o on misconductoasofoundationoforopassingotheoorderoof terminationosimplicitorooroonomotiveoonotheogroundoof unsuitabilityotoocontinueoinoservice.oIfotheoformoand languageoofotheoorderoofoterminationosimplicitoroofoa probationeroclearlyoindicateothatoitoisopunitiveoin natureoor/andoitoisostigmaticothereomayonotobeoany needotoogoointootheodetailsoofotheobackgroundoand surroundingocircumstancesoinotestingowhetherothe orderoofoterminationoisosimplicitorooropunitive.oIn cases o where o the o services o of o a o probationer o are terminatedobyoanoorderoofoterminationosimplicitoroand theolanguageoandoformoofoitodoonotoshowothatoeitheroit isopunitiveoorostigmaticoonotheofaceoofoitobutothereomay beoaobackgroundoandoattendingocircumstancesoto showothatomisconductowasotheorealobasisoandodesign tooterminateotheoservicesoofoaoprobationer.oInoother words,otheofacadeoofotheoterminationoorderomayobe simplicitorobutotheorealofaceobehindoitoisotoogetoridoof servicesoofoaoprobationeroonotheobasisoofomisconduct. Inosuchocasesoitobecomesonecessaryotootravelobeyond theoorderoofoterminationosimplicitorotoofindooutowhat inorealityoisotheobackgroundoandowhatoweighedowith the o employer o to o terminate o the o services o of o a probationer.oInothatoprocessoitoalsoobecomesonecessary toofindooutowhetheroeffortsowereomadeotoofindooutothe suitabilityoofotheopersonotoocontinueoinoserviceooroheois inorealityoremovedofromoserviceoonotheofoundationoof hisomisconduct.

12.oInotheopresentocase,oevenoonoearlierooccasions when othe o appellant o failed o to o performo his oduties properlyoduringoprobationoperiodoheowasowarnedoto improveoandocontinuedoinotheoservice.oIfoheowasotoobe removed o from o service o on o the o allegations o of misconductoatothatotimeoitselfotheorespondentsocould haveoremovedohimofromoservice.oThisoisoalsooa circumstanceotooindicateothatohisoorderoofotermination was o simplicitor. oTherefore, o havingo regard oto o the particularofactsoandocircumstancesoandoinoviewoof whatoisostatedoaboveoweohaveonoogoodoreasonoto disagreeowithotheoimpugnedoorder." Keepingoinoviewotheofactsoofotheopresentocaseocoupledowithothe settledoprinciplesoofolawostatedohereinbefore,ojurisdictionoasoexercisedobyothe respondent-departmentoowhileopassingoorderodatedo19.03.1997oisoasoperolaw andotheosameoisoalsooinoconsonanceowithoRuleo11oofo1978oRules. o Once, o it o is o conceded o that o respondent-plaintiff o had o not completedomaximumoperiodoofoprobationoofothreeoyearsoupotootheodateoof passingotheoimpugnedoorderodatedo19.03.1997,oheowasotoobeotreatedoas probationeroinotheofactsoandocircumstancesoofotheopresentocase,owhichohave beenonoticedohereinbeforeohence,otheofindings,owhichohaveobeenorecordedoby theo Courts o belowo that o on o the o date o when o the o impugnedo ordero dated

19.03.1997owasopassedobyotheorespondent-department,otheorespondent-plaintiffo owas odeemed otoo haveosuccessfullyocompleted otheoperiod oof probationoandoshouldodeemedotoobeoconsideredoasoaoconfirmedoemployeeoas pero1978oRulesoisocontraryotootheofacts,orulesogoverningotheoserviceoasowelloas theosettledoprinciplesoofolawonoticedohereinbefore. Keepingoinoviewotheoabove,otheojudgmentsoofotheoCourtsobelow datedo02.11.2001oando14.03.2002oareonotoonlyoperverseotootheofactsoand evidenceoonorecordobutoalsoocontraryotootheosettledoprinciplesoofolawonoticed hereinbeforeoandohence,ocannotobeosustainedoandoaccordinglyoareosetoaside.o Keepingoinoviewotheofindingsorecordedoinotheopresentoappeal, respondent/plaintiffowasostilloonoprobationoatotheotimeowhenohisoservices wereodispensedowith.oTheosuitofiledobyotheorespondent/plaintiffoseekingoa declarationothatoorderodatedo19.03.1997odispensingohisoservicesobeotreatedoas null o and o void,o is odismissed o and o the o findings orecorded o in o this o order hereinbefore,obeotreatedoasopartoofotheoorderodismissingotheosuitofiledobyothe respondent/plaintiffoasotheosameoareonotobeingorepeatedoforotheosakeoof brevityoandotheopresentoregularosecondoappealoisoaccordinglyoallowedoin aboveoterms. Februaryo10,oo2023 oooooooooooooooo(HARSIMRANoSINGHoSETHI) aarti ooooooooooooooooooooooooJUDGEo Whetherospeaking/reasonedo: Yes/No Whetheroreportableo: Yes/No