LexDIPTI PRAKASH BANERJEE versus SATVENDRA NATH BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC SCIENCES, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
DIPTI PRAKASH BANERJEE
~
v.
SATVENDRA NATH BOSE NATIONAL CENTRE FOR BASIC
<::
SCIENCES, CALCUTTA AND OTHERS.
B
FEBRUARY 10, 1999
(M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.)
Service Law-Termination of services of probationer without
departmental enquiry---{Jrder of termination ref erring to conduct of the
c probationer during the entire period of probation-Probatio11er initially served
a letter maki11g serious allegatio11s of misconduct-Later a11other letter extract-
ing fi11dings of a11 inf annal I11qui1y Committee about probationer's involve-
mellt in a scufj1e a11d his "misdeeds" like obtai11i11g false signatures-Whether
such fi11di11gs of misconduct co11stituted 'motive' or 'fou11dation' of the order
D of tennination-Held, they constituted the 'f ou11datio11' and hence the order
of tennination required to be set aside.
Service Law-Terniination of services of probationer without
•
departme11tal e11quiry---{Jrder of tenni11atio11 ref erring to an earlier letter ex-
tracting fi11di11gs of a11 earlier inf annal I11quiry Committee about probationer's
E involvement in a scuffle and his 'misdeeds' like obtaining false signa-
tures-Held, words used in proceedings referred to in tenni11atio11 order were
in the nature of a stigma; order liable to be set aside 011 that ground as well.
Service Law-Tennination of probationer's services without departmen-
ta/ inquiry-Termi11utio11 held to be illegal-Probationer not gainfully
F employed-Held, probationer entitled to reinstateme11t and backwages till date
of rei11stateme11t from date of tenni11ation a11d to continuity of service.
Service Law-Terminatio11 of services without departmental en-
quiry-When could it be said that misconduct was the 'foundation' of order
G or temiination and when 011/y the 'motive' for such tennination-Held, where
findings of misconduct arrived at in an inquiry behind the back of the
employee, the order of tennination to be treated as 'founded' on such allega-
tion and would be bad; where no inquiry held, the allegatio11s would be a
1
motive a11d the order of tenni11ation would be valid.
•
H
Service Law-Tenninatio11 of services without inquiry-Whether words
532
-
l'
D.P. BANERJEE v. S.N. BOSE NATIONAL CEN'IRE FOR BASIC SCIENCES 533
casting stigma could be gather~d from proceedings leading up to order of A
)
tennination even if the order itself contained no such words--Held, yes.
The appellant was appointed on January 11, 1995 as Office Super·
intendent in the respondent organisation, on probation for one year on
condition that he might be confirmed after one year provided the ad-
ministration was satisfied with quality of the appellant's service. In a letter
to the appellant dated December 11, 1995 the respondent stated that
appellant had prepared false bills and that be had misbehaved with women
academic staff members. The appellant sent a reply denying the allega·
tions. Thereafter the appellant's probation was extended by six months
from May 2, 1996.
B
c
On October 17, 1996 the Director of the Respondent wrote to the
Appellant pointing out 'serious deficiencies' in the latter's performance.
Reference in this letter was made to the findings of an informal inquiry
committee which had looked into the appellant's complaint against a
Helper. The letter extracted the findings of the committee to the effect that D
the appellant's behaviour before it was reprehensible; that he had been
involved in a scuffie; that he had committed other 'misdeeds like obtaining
false signatures' and that he was a person of'dubious character'. This was
followed by a report of an Administrative Officeer on October 17, 1996
which was totally in the appellant's favour. On October 31, 1996 the E
appellant's probation was extended for a further period of six months.
By an order dated April 30, 1997, the Appellant's services were
terminated. Reference was made in the order to the appellant's unsatisfac·
tory performance during initial period of probation and to the letter dated
October 17, 1996. The order stated that the respondent had 'closely F
watched and examined your conduct, performance, ability and capacity
during the whole period of probation but your performance is found to be
unsatisfactory and you are considered unsuitable for the post against
which you have been appointed".
The appellant's writ petition challenging the order of termination G
was dismissed by Single Judge of the Calcutta High Court. A DExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.