CHAITANYA PRAKASH & ANR. versus H. OMKARAPPA

Citation: [2010] 1 S.C.R. 467 · Decided: 12-01-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

(2010] 1 S.C.R. 467 
CHAITANYA PRAKASH & ANR. 
v. 
H. OMKARAPPA 
(Civil Appeal No. 2786 of 2007) 
. JANUARY 12, 2010 
[V.S. SIRPURKAR ANO DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
SHARMA, JJ.) 
A 
B 
Service law - Termination - Employee on probation -
Performance not found satisfactory - Extension of probation 
C 
period - Thereafter, termination of employee - High Court 
holding the termination order as stigmatic - Directions to 
employer to allow the employee to continue in service - On 
appeal, held: Employer had time and again specifically 
brought to the notice of employee of his short comings, gave o 
ample opportunities to improve them and no misconduct as 
such was alleged against employee - Thus, was termination . 
simpliciter due to unsuitability of employee .and not 
punishment for mi~conduct - It cannot be said to be. stigmatic 
- Order of termination restored - Hindustan Photo Films 
E 
Service Rules for Officers - Clause 3. 
The question· which arose for consideration in· this 
appeal is whether the impugned order passed by the 
appellants-employer against the respondent-employee-
terminating his service during the period of probation was 
F 
an order of termination simpliciter due to unsatisfactory 
service or "stigmatic''. due·to misconduct. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Even if an order of termination refers to 
G 
unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same 
cannot be said to be stigmatic. The impugned order 
passed by the appellants against the respondent 
terminating his service during the period of probation is 
not stigmatic and as such the decision of the High Court 
H 
467 
468 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2010] 1 S.C.R. 
A is erroneous and vitiated and is set aside. The order 
passed by the appellant is restored. [Paras 16 and 22) 
[478-G-H; 482-C-D] 
2.1. The respondent was appointed as Executive 
Director [Marketing] on specific terms and conditions, one 
B of which was that he would be on probation in the said 
post for a period of one year from the date of joining the 
post. The respondent accepted the said offer of 
appointment along with terms and conditions appended 
thereto and also specifically accepted the position that 
C he would be guided by the rules and regulations 
applicable to the appellant no. 2-Company. [Para 11) [475-
E-G] 
2.2. The respondent was ordered to be on probation 
for a period of one year and as per clause 3.2 of 
D Hindustan Photo Films Service Rules for Officers his 
performance during the period of probation was to be 
reviewe~ by the company and that the company could 
extend the period of probation or terminate the service 
of the respondent at any time during or at the time of 
E probation period. Clause 3.3 of Service Rules stated there 
has to be an order communicating the order of 
confirmation to the officers concerned after the end of the 
period of probation. In the instant case, no such order of 
confirmation was passed by the appellant no. 2 
F confirming the service of the respondent. Respondent 
continued to be on probation, which was extended for a 
period of three months. [Para 12) [475-H; 476-A-C] 
2.3 The respondent was not confirmed in the post of 
Executive Director {Marketing) and he continued to be on 
G probation during which period his service could be 
terminated for unsatisfactory work and for doing so it was 
not necessary for the appellants to institute departmental 
proceedings or to give an opportunity of hearing to the 
respondent. But the respondent was time and again 
H informed during the probation period about his 
CHAITANYA PRAKASH & ANR. v. H. OMKARAPPA 469 
deficiencies and was given ample opportunities to A 
improve them. Therefore, enough precautions were taken 
by the appellants to see that the respondent improved his 
performance and such an opportunity was provided to 
him. But such advices and opportunity were totally 
n:iisplaced as the respondent considered the same as 
B 
unnecessary encroachment and interference in his work 
and wrote back rudely ln an intemperate language. 
Whether or not a person is suitable to be retained and 
confirmed in service could be considered and assessed 
by the Managing Director, namely, appellant no. 1, but he c 
after making an appraisai:submitted his report along with 
all other records of the tespondent before the Board of 
Directors, who finally took the decision. The Board of 
Directors constituted of responsible persons and they 
while deciding the suitability of the respondent no

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.