Ram Lal Sharma v. Himachal Pradesh Road Transport Corporation

Mr. Adarsh Sharma, Advocate has supported the order dated

4.1.1993. He submitted that the order is neither stigmatic nor punitive. He then contended that the suitability of the petitioner was adjudged by the Managing Director on the basis of his conduct and he was not found suitable. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the pleadings carefully. The petitioner was appointed on 8.10.1990. His probation was extended on 3.8.1992 for further period one year from 8.10.1992. A bare perusal of memorandum dated 3.8.1992 reveals that only the work and conduct of the petitioner was seen and it was not found satisfactory. He was permitted to file the reply to this memorandum dated 3.8.1992. He filed the reply to the same. The competent authority after taking into consideration the reply filed by the petitioner dispensed the services of the petitioner on 4.1.1993. The impugned order dated 4.1.1993 is neither punitive nor stigmatic as argued by Mr. Ramakant Sharma. In fact, it was not necessary for the corporation while assessing the suitability of the 3 petitioner to mention specific instances as per memorandum dated

3.8.1992. The motive to discharge the services of the petitioner was his unsuitability. In fact, as and when services of the person, who is appointed on probation, is terminated it pre-supposes that the probationer is unfit for job. The question what language in termination order would amount to stigma has been gone into detail by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee versus Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60. Their Lordships have held as under: “29. We may advert to a few cases on the question of stigma. We shall refer initially to cases where a Special Rule relating to termination of probationer required a particular condition to be satisfied and where the said condition was referred to in the order of termination. In Hari Singh Mann v. State of Punjab, (1975) 3 SCC 182 : (AIR 1974 SC 2263), the probationer was governed by Rule 8(b) of the Punjab Service Rules, 1959 and the fact that the word 'unfit' as required by the Rules was used, was held not to be a ground for quashing the order on the ground of 'stigma', for to hold that it amounted to 'stigma' would amount to robbing the authority of the right under the rule. Similarly where a Rule required a show cause notice issued and an inquiry to be conducted before terminating probation, such as Rule 55-B of the Central Civil Services (CCA) Rules, there would be no question of characterising the simple order of termination as one founded on the allegations which were the subject of the inquiry. That was because, in such a case, the purpose of the inquiry was to find out if the officer was to be continued in service and not to find out if he was guilty. State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das, AIR 1961 SC 177; Ranendra Chandra v. Union of India, AIR 1963 SC 1552. In State of Gujarat v. Akhilesh C.