LexRANENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEE versus UNION OF INDIA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
2 S.C.R. SUPRE~fE C< r 1RT REPORTS 135 appellant to reinstate Mr. Banerjee is set aside. In the circumstances of the case, there would be no order a~ to costs. Appeal allowed. RANENDRA CHANDRA BANERJEI v. UNION OF INDIA (P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, K. N. WANCHOO, M. HrnAYATULLAH, K. C. DAS GuPTA and j. C. SHAH jj.) P11blic Servant-Probationer-Discharg• from servir;,, for unsali•faclory work-If tntitled to 7irottrtion under the Con•ti- tution and the Rule8-Ci·•il Sm·ices (Cla•sification, Control «nd Appeal) Rul11, rr. 3 (a), 49, 55-B-Con8titution of India, Art. 311 (2). The appellant was appointed on probation for one year as Programme Assistant on May 3, 1949, on condition that his 1ervice1 might be terminated without any notice and cause being assigned during that period. He agreed and joined ser- vice on these terms on July 4, 1952, he was called upon to show cause why his services should not be terminated and as the explanation given was not satisfactory, his services were termi- nated after August 31, 1952. On an application moved under Art. 226 of the Constitution the High Court dismissed the application and held that the appellant was not entitled to the protection of Art, 311 (2) of the Constitution, that rr. 49 and 55-B of the Civil Services Rules did not apply and that he was governed by the contract of hio service. Held, that in the present case the appellant was a pro· bationer and the termination of his service was not by way of punishment and could not amount to dismissal or removal within the meaning of Art. 311. As a prob•tioner he would be liable to be discharged during that period subject to the 196~ Thi T•t• Oil Mill• Co,, Lti. v. W1.1rkmen Gajendrag5ikar J. 1963 Feiruary 11. JjfjJ li•nenJ11, Ck4nJr• ••n1rj1e •• Uri;•n •f lniia 136 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1964] VOL. ruk• in force in that connection and a• Explanation 2 to r; ~9 had been deleted long before the action wa• taken, he wa• not entitled to the protection of Art. 311. Par.shottam Lal Dhingra v. If nimt of India, [ 1958] S. C. R. 828 and State of Oris•a v. Ram Narai11 Dai [!961) l S.C.R, 606, referred to. Held, tuther, that r. 5j.B would apply to the appellant and was not excluded by r. 3 (a). The purpose of a notice under r. 55-B was to ascertain, after considering the explanation which a probationer may give, whether he should be retained or not and in such a case it would be sufficient compliance with that rule if the ground, on which the probationer i• considered unsuitable for retention are r.01nrnunicated to him and any explanation given by him wit!1 respect to tho•e ground, was duly considered before an order was pa.sed. In the present casr, thecdore, the appellant w.is given the opportunity a• envi- saged by r. 55-B and the appeal therefore, must be di.missed. C1vrL APl'ELLA'l'E JumsDIC"fION : Civil Appeal No. 271 of 19ti2. Appeal from the Judgment and order dated May l8, 19:ifl of the Punjab High Court (Circuit Bench) at Delhi in L. !'. A. No. 24-D of 1956. K. H. Jlehta, for the appellant. N. 8. Bindra, fl. H. Dhe.bar for R. N. 8ach- they, for the respond en ts. HJti3. February 18. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by W ANCHOO ].-This is an appeal on a certi· ficate granted by the Punjab High Court. The app~llant was selected for the post of Programme Assistant on May :3, 194!) and was appointed on probation fo~ one year'. and '.he l~tter o~ appo!ntment said that dunng the said penod his services might be terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned. He was asked to accept the nft'er on this condition. The appellant accepted tbe ... 2 S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 137 offer and joined service on June 4, 1949. His period of probation expired on June 3, 1950, but it was extended from time to time. On July 4, 1952, the appellant was ir1formed that his probation period ,:ould not be extended and was called upon to show cause why his services should •not be terminated. The appellant showed cause. , He was finally in- formed that the explanation given by him was not satisfactory and that his services were to be termina- ted after August 31, 1952. The appellant then filed a petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution in the Punjab High Court and his main contention was that he was entitled to the protection of Art. 311 (2) of the Constitution and as this was not afforded to him the order terminating his service
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.