OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION AND ORS. versus DR. MOHD. S. ISKENDER ALI

Citation: [1980] 3 S.C.R. 603 · Decided: 14-04-1980 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.C. GUPTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 5 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

f 
J 
OIL AND NATURAL GAS COMMISSION AND ORS. 
v. 
DR. MOHD. S. !SKENDER ALI 
April 14. 1980 
603 
A 
[A. C. GUPTA, S. MURTAZA FAZAI. Au AND P. S. KAILASAM, JJ.J 
B 
Tennination of Services-Tern1ination Si111pliciter-Services of a probationer 
terminated without further proceeding 
against 
the 
departmental 
enquiry-
Whether offends Art. 311 (2) of the- Constitution and attaches any stigma. 
The respondent was appointed on a purely temporary basis to the post of a 
medical ofl:cer in the Oil and Natural Gas Commission. Under the terms and 
C 
conditions of service. he was to remain on 
probation 
for 
a 
period 
of 
one y1e'ar \V1iich could be 
extended -at 
the 
disi;;retion 
of the 
appointing 
authority He was appointed on Ottober 15, 1965. During the 
period 
of 
his probation. on a repart ag<·iinst him for negligence and dereliction of duty, 
a departn1ental enquiry was held against him but that was not proceeded with, 
nor was any punishment imposed on him. 
His period of probation was extend
4 
ed for six months from 15-10-1966 and before his services were tenninated, there 
D 
was no express order either confirming hin1 or extending the period of probation. 
His services were terminti.tcd with effect fron1 28th July 1967. 
T11e respondent filed a \vdt petition in the High Court on the ground that 
the order tenninating his services was n1afa(idc and was in fact passed by way 
of penalty entailing evil consequenc.!S. 
The plea taken 
by the 
respondent 
forind favour with the High Court which aJlowed the petition and quashed the 
E 
order of the appellant terminating the services of the respondent. 
Hence the 
appeal by special leave by the State. 
AI!owing the appea.1 the Court 
HELD : 1. A temporary employee is <lppointed on probation for a particular 
period only in order to test' whether his conduct is good and satisfactory so 
that he niay he retained. 
The remarks, in the assessment roll merely indicate 
the nature of the perfonnancc put in by the officer for the limited pilrpose of 
detern1ining ""hrther or not his probation should be extended. 
These remarks 
were not intended to cnst any stigmn. 
f607G-H. 608A] 
R. L. Butail v. [Inion of India, [1971] 2 S.C.R. 55, followed. 
F 
2. The contention thrit the real motive behind the termination of the service 
G 
.of the respondent \V'as to inflict a punishn1cnt on him and as the appellants did 
nt,t comply with the requirements of Article 3 I 1 of the Constitution, the order 
in1pugned \Vas illegal is not correct. Jn the first place, it was clearly pleaded by 
the Ciover11n1ent in its counter-affidavit thnt talthough an enquiry was held it was 
not continued and no punishment was in1poscd on the respondent. 
As 
the 
respondent was merely a probationer the appointing authority did not consider 
it necessary to continue the enquiry but decided to terminate the services of the 
H 
respondent a~ he was not found suitable for the job. 
In the case of Q proba-
tioner or a temporary employee. who has no right to 1he post, such a terrnina-
604 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1980] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
tion of his service is valid and does not attract the provisions of Article 311 
of the Constitution. [608C-E, G-H, 609A] 
Even if misconduct, negligence, inefficiency may be the 
motive 
or 
the 
inducing factor which influences the employer to terminate the services of the 
employee, a power which the appellants undoubtedly possessed, even so as under 
~ 
the tctrms of appointment of the respondent such a power flo\ved from 
the 
B 
contract of service it could not b~ termed as penalty or punishment. 
[61 lC-D] 
Shamsher Singh and Anr. v. State of Punjab, [1975] 1 SCR 814; Purshotta.'n 
Lal Dhbzgra v. Union of Indi.a, [19581 SCR 828; Sta.te of U.P. v. Rc11n 
Chand 
Trivedi, [1977] 1 SCR 462; State of Maharaslit1'll v. J7eerappa R. Saboji end 
Anr. [1980] I SCR 551, followed. 
3. The order i'mpugned is prhna facie an order of termination 
simpliciter 
C 
without invohr:ing any stigma. The order does not in any way involve any evil 
consequences and is an order of discharge simpliciter of the respondent who 
was a probati.oner and had no right to the service. The respondent 
has not 
been able to make out any strong case for this Court to delve into the docu-
ments, materials in order to determine a case of victimisation or one of punish-
ment. ·The short history of the service of the respondent clearly showed that 
his work had nfi.vcr been satisfactory and he was not found sui

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