NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN versus MEHBUB ALAM LASKAR

Citation: [2008] 1 S.C.R. 1069 · Decided: 22-01-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2008) 1 S.C.R. 1069 
A 
NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN 
~ ; 
v. 
MEHBUB ALAM LASKAR 
(Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006) 
B 
JANUARY 22, 2008 
[S.B. SINHA AND HARJIT SINGH BEDI, JJ.] 
... 
Service law: Termination - Services of employee 
~ 
terminated during probation period on a/legations of financial 
c irregularities - Enquiry conducted behind his back -
Representations by employee - Subsequent order thereto that 
services terminated on basis of prima facie a/legations of 
financial irregularities and no inquiry required by Authority 
since charges already proved/admitted by employee -
D Challenge to - Order of re-instatement by High Court - On 
appeal held: Termination of service of probationer is justified 
':-
when there is unsatisfactory performance by employee - When 
• 
foundation for such order is misconduct, employee should be 
given opportunity of hearing - On facts, employer disclosed 
E foundation of the order at a later stage, the original order must 
be held to be vitiated in law- Thus, services of employee could 
not have been terminated - Employee entitled to back wages 
for the later period - Moreover, presently employee being in 
service, employer to initiate departmental proceeding against 
him. 
F 
'( ' 
The respondent was appointed with the appellant-
Sangathan. It is alleged that during the probation period, 
the respondent committed financial irregularities. An 
enquiry was conducted behind his back and on basis 
G thereof his services were terminated during the probation 
period. Respondent filed representations seeking review 
} 
of the termination order dated 24.5.1995 but the same were 
not considered. Respondent then filed a writ petition. The 
High Court directed the appellant to consider the 
H 
1069 
NEHRU YUVA KENDRA SANGATHAN v. 
1070 
MEHBUB ALAM LASKAR 
•• 1 
representation of the respondent in view of the decision A 
of the High Court in Ajay Gupta's case Civil Rule No. 5582 
of 1995. The representation was rejected since the case 
of Ajay Gupta was not similar to the instant case and the 
services were terminated on basis of certain prima facie 
allegations of financial irregularities which were admitted B 
by the respondent and as such no inquiry was required 
~ 
by the Authority. Respondent filed another writ petition 
'< 
and the same was allowed. The respondent was directed 
to be re-instated in service and the appellant was entitled 
to initiate a departmental proceeding against the c 
respondent. However, the order was not complied with 
and as such the contempt petition was filed and the 
contemnor was directed to comply with the Orders of the 
Court. Writ Appeal was also filed against the order of High 
Court and the same was dismissed. Hence the present D 
'>· 
appeal. 
• 
Allowing Civil Appeal No. 1125 of 2006 and dismissing 
Civil Appeal No. 1123 of 2006, the Court. 
HELD: 1.1 The Office Order dated 24.5.1995 was not E 
a speaking one. Respondent was given a notice. He 
accepted that he had put the money withdrawn from the 
banks in his own accounts. He justified his action in his 
letter dated 14.6.1995. It, however, does not transpire that 
any further enquiry was made. Respondent was found to 
,I .,. 
be guilty of misappropriation of the Appellant's fund. 
F 
Evidently, the said explanation was not considered. Had 
an enquiry been held, the said explanation of the 
respondent might have been found to be acceptable by 
the appellant. [Para 10] [1077-E-F] 
1.2 Respondent was appointed on a temporary basis. G 
He was put on probation. Indisputably, the period of 
probation was required to be completed upon rendition 
of satisfactory service. Only in the event of unsatisfactory 
performance by the employee, the termination of H 
1071 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 1 S.C.R. 
A probation would have been held to be justified. It is, 
).. • 
however, well-known that when the foundation for such 
an order is not the unsatisfactory performance on the part 
of the employee but overt acts amounting to misconduct, 
an opportunity of hearing to the concerned employee is 
B imperative. If the employee is found to have committed a 
misconduct, although an order terminating probation 
would appear to be innocuous on its face, the same would 
.~-
be vitiated, if in effect and substance it is found to be 
' 
stigmatic in nature. [Para 11] [1077-G-H; 1078-A] 
c 
1.3 Mere holding of a preliminary enquiry where 
explanation is called for from the employee, if followed 
by an innocuous order o

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