KRISHNADEV ARAYA EDUCATION TRUST AND ANR versus L.A. BALAKRISHNA

Citation: [2001] 1 S.C.R. 387 · Decided: 15-01-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: B.N. KIRPAL, RUMA PAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

-- ~ 
~ 
KRISHNADEV ARAYA EDUCATION TRUST AND ANR: 
A 
V. 
L.A. BALAKRISHNA 
JANUARY 15, 2001 
[B.N. KIRPAL AND MRS. RUMA PAL, JJ.] 
B 
Service Law 
Probation-Termination of service during-Validity of-Respondent 
appointed as Assistant Professor-Termination of service during probation- c 
Termination order stating that job proficiency of respondent was not upto the 
mark-Termination order successfully challenged before Tribunal-
Subsequently fresh termination order passed-This order also set aside by 
the Tribunal-High Court upheld the decision of Tribunal-Appeal before 
Supreme Court-Decision of Tribunal set aside-Held second ter!IJination D 
order was innocuously worded-Even the ground mentioned into the first 
order viz., the job proficiency of the respondent was not upto the mark was 
a valid reason for terminating the service of the respondent-That reason 
cannot be cited for contending that the termination was by way of punishment. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No : 628 of E 
2001. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 09.02.2000 in CRP 3807/99 of the · · 
High Court of Kamataka at Bangalore. 
P.P. Rao, A.K. Goel, Ms. Kiran Suri and Sheela Goel for the appearing F 
parties. 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered : 
Special Leave granted. 
The respondent was appointed to the post of Assistant Professor on G 
22nd Septen,>ber, 1990 on probation. Within the probationary period, by order 
dated 16th June, 1991, his services were teminated. In the order terminating 
the services, it was mentioned as follows: 
"As a matter of policy, as usual, a committee was constituted to go H 
387 
388 
A 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[200 I] I S.C.R. 
into the general performance of each staff. The committee after having 
gone through the records of each individual right from the date of his/ 
her inception into the Institute, is of the opinion that your on the job 
proficiency is not upto the mark. Hence, the Institution feels that 
your services are no longer required." 
B 
The aforesaid order was challenged before the Educational Tribunal on 
the ground that the order terminating the appointment cast a stigma and, 
therefore, such an order could not be passed without holding a departmental 
inquiry. 
Before the Tribunal, the appellants herein conceded and the said order 
C of termination was set aside. Subsequently again, within the period of 
probation, a fresh order of termination was passed which was as follows : 
D 
E 
F 
"Sri L.A. Balakrishna, Assistant Professor, Department of 
Mechanical Engineering will be relieved of his duties with effect from 
1.8.1991, he may be paid his dues if any." 
This order was again challenged and the Tribunal came to the conclusion that 
the real reason for passing this order was that his services were found to be 
unsuitable and, theref0re, this was by way of punishment. The order was set 
aside and the high Court upheld the decision of the Tribunal. Hence, th is 
appeal. 
There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to 
engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of probation, 
the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If his services are not 
satisfactory which means that he is not suitable for the job, than the employer 
has a right to terminate the services as a reason thereof. If the termination 
during probationary period is without any reason, perhaps such an order 
would be sought to be challenged on the ground of being arbitrary. Therefore, 
normally services of an employee on probation would be terminated, when he 
is found not to be suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without 
assigning any reason. If the order on the face of it states that his services 
G are being terminated because his performance is not satisfactory, the employer 
runs the risk 0f the allegation being made that the order itself casts a stigma. 
We do not say that such a contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is 
preferred that the order itself does not mention the reason why the services 
are being terminated. 
H 
If such an order is challenged, the employer will have to indicate the 
·-
KRISHNADEVARAYA EDUCATION TRUSTv. L.A. BALAKRISHNA 389 
grounds on which the services of a probationer. were terminated. Mere fact A 
that in response to the challenge the employer states that the services were 
not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the. probationer 
were being terminated by way of punishment.

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