GOVERNING COUNCIL OF KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE OF ONCOLOGY, BANGALORE versus DR. PANDURANG GODWALKAR AND ANR.

Citation: [1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 250 · Decided: 23-10-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. RANGANATHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
GOVERNING COUNCIL OF KIDWAI MEMORIAL INSTITUTE 
B 
c 
OF ONCOLOGY, BANGALORE 
v. 
DR. PANDURAN(; GODWALKAR AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 23, 1992 
rs. RANGANATHAN AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Civil Services : 
Tennination of service during probation perioc}--()vera/l peifonnanc~ 
Consideration of-Tennination whether amounts to punishment-Finding out 
the real nature of order-Tearing of the veil-Applicability of-Preliminary 
inquiry or exa1nination of al/egation-W1iether vitiates order of tennination of 
service. 
D 
The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in the appellant-In-
E 
F 
stitute •nd was put on probation for one year. During the probation 
period his services were terminated. The respondent challenged the same 
before the High Court by way of' a Writ Petition contending that actually 
order of dismissal has been passed in the garb of an order of termination; 
and that the Director of the appellant-Institute instead of initiating a 
departmental proceeding on the basis of some charges levelled against 
him, placed the matter before the governing council of the Institute for 
termination of his sen-ices. 
The High Court gave its finding that since the service of the 
petitioner had been terminated because of the complaints made against 
him, it really amounted to his removal for alleged misconduct and so the \ 
appellant-Institute should have initiated a departmental proceeding and 
only after due enquiry any action should have been taken. 
Being aggrieved by U1e High Court's order, the appellant-Institute 
G has preferred the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court, 
HELD: 1.1. When an appointment is made on probation, it pre-sup-
poses that the conduct, performance, ability and the capacity of the 
H employee concerned have to be W'atched and examined during the period 
250 
KIOWA! MEMORIAL INSTITUTE '· DR. GODWALKAR 
251 
of probation. He is to be confirmed after the expiry of probation only when A 
his service during the period of probation is found to be satisfactory and 
he is considered suitable for the post against which he has been appointed. 
The principle of tearing of the veil for finding out the real nature of the 
order shall be applicable only in a case where the Coµrt is satisfied that 
there is a direct nexus between the charge so levelled and the action taken. 
If the decision is taken to terminate the service of an employee during the 
period of probation, after taking into consideration the overall perfor-
mance and some action or inaction on the part of such employee then it 
cannot be said that it amounts to bis removal from service as punishment. 
Tbe appointing authority at the stage of confirmation or w!tile examining 
B 
the question as to whether the service of such employee be terminated C 
during the continuance of the period of probation, is entitled to look iqto 
any complaint made in respect of such employee w!tile 4isc!iari:ing his 
<juties for purpose of making assessment of the performance of such 
employee. [254-J<;-H; 255-A] 
1.2. Even if such employee while questioning the validity of an order p 
of termination simpliciter brings on the record that some prelimi11ary 
h1quiry or examination of some allegations had been made, that will llQf 
vitiate the order of termination. [255-!l] 
Oil a11d Nantral Gas Commission v. Dr. Mohd. S. Iskeitdfr Ali, [1980] B 
3 SCR 603; Ravindra Kumar Misra v. U.P. State Handloom Coip11. /..tq., 
[1987] suppl. SCC 739: State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushql Kishore Shukla, 
[1991] l SCC 691 and Triveni Shankar Saxena v. State of U.P., J.T. 1992 
(1) S.C. 37, relied on. 
Anoop Jaiswal v. Govemment of India, [1984] 2 sq~ 453, <!istin· F 
guished. 
CIVIL A.PPELLA TE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 3244 of 
1988. 
From the Jud~cnt and Order dated 8.7.1988 of the Karnataka High G 
Court in W.A. No. 560 of 1983. 
K.N. Bhat. S.K Kulkarni and Ms. Kir&n Suri for the Appellant. 
S.N. Bhat, M. Vcerappa and KH. Nobin Singh for the respondents. Ji 
252 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1992] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
B 
c 
N.P. SINGH, J. This appeal has been filed against an order passed 
by the High Court, on a writ application filed by the petitioner-respondent 
(hereinafter referred to as "the respondent") quashing the order of termina-
tion of the service of the respondent. 
The respondent was appointed as a Lecturer in Surgical Oncology 
on 3rd July, 1981. He was to be on probation for a period of one year from 
the date of his appoi

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