LexDAYARAM DAYAL versus STATE OF M.P. AND ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A DAYARAM DAYAL v. STATE OF M.P. AND ANR. AUGUST 28, 1997 B (SUJATA V. MANOHAR AND M. JAGANNADHA RAO, JJ.) Se1vice Law : M.P. Judicial Services (Classification, Recmitment and Conditions of C Se1vice) Rules, 1955, Rule 24 : Probation-Deemed completion of-Continuance in service beyond maximum period prescribed under the Rules up .to which probation could be extended-In such situation the probationer is deemed to have been con- jim1ed-Tennination on the ground of unsatisfactory perfonnance, without D holding a disciplina1y enquiry, held, invalid-However it is open to the Govemment to hold a departmental enquiry and tenninate his service or otherwise punish such employee if the charges are proved. Conji1mation-Deemed confirmation, on expiry of maximum E presc1ibed pe1iod of probation. Reinstatement/back wages-Tennination, held invalid-Employee en- titled to all mrears of emoluments from the date of tennination-Also, entitled to all consequential benefits, in accordance with law. p Rule 24 of the M.P. Judicial Services (Classification, Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1955 provides that every candidate appointed to the cadre shall undergo training for a period of six months before he is appointed on probation for a period of two years which period may be extended for a further period of not exceeding two years. It was further provided in this Rule that the probationers may, at the end of the G period of their probation be confirmed subject to their fitness for confir- mation and having passed by the higher standard, all such departmental examination as may be prescribed. Rule 24(3) of the Rules further provided that if during the period of probation, the probationer has not passed the prescribed departmental examinations, or has been found H otherwise unsuitable for the service, the Governor may, at any time, 624 DAYARAMDAYALv. STATE 625 dispense with his service. A The appellant was appointed as Civil Judge, Class II in State Sub- ordinate Judicial Service by an order dated 22.10.1985. There were· reports about his unsatisfactory performance and hence the State Government terminated the services of the appellant vide order dated 8.11.1993 (served on 17.12.1993) by paying one month's salary in lieu of notice period. The B action· was unsuccessfully challenged by the appellant before the High Court. A Letters Patent Appeal filed by the appellant was also dismissed. Hence this Appeal. The contention of the appellant was that the maximum period of C probation prescribed under Rule 24(1) was four years and therefore as on 8.11.1993, i.e. after the completion of four years he was deemed to have been confirmed. Allowing the appeal, the Court D HELD : 1.1. An examination of the rulings of this Court on the question of probation and confirmation shows that in some cases this Court has held that mere continuation beyond the period of probation does not amount to confirmation unless the order of appointment or the rule contains a deeming provision, while in some other cases, it has been held that in certain exceptional situation, it is permissible to hold that the E services must be deemed to be confirmed. There is no real conflict between two sets of decisions and it depends on the conditions contained in the order of appointment and the relevant rules that are applicable. [ 630-C] 1.2. In first line of cases, it has been held that if in the rule or order of appointment, a period of probation is specified and a power to extend probation is also specified and the officer is continued beyond the prescribed period of probation, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases, there is no bar against termination after the expiry of the initial period of probation. The other line of cases are those where while there is F a provision in the rules of initial probation and extension thereof, a G maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. Even in such type of cases, there may _ be special provision in the relevant rules to negative such inference. [630-E, 631-E] State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, [1968] 3 SCR 1 and Beena Tiwa1i H 626 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1997) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. A v. State of M.P., 1988 Supp. SCC 213, relied on. B c Sukhbans Singh v. State of Punjab, [1963) 1 SCR 416, G.R. Ramas- wamy v. Inspector General of Police, AIR (1966) SC 1842; State of U.P. v. Akbar Ali Khan, [1
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.