V.P. AHUJA versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] 2 S.C.R. 130 · Decided: 06-03-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD, R.P. SETHI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
6 
E 
F 
G 
H 
V.P.AHUJA 
v. 
STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS. 
MARCH 6, 2000 
[S. SAGHIRAHMAD AND RP. SETHI, JJ.] 
Service Law : 
Probationer-Termination of service. during the period of probation-
Order stating that employee failed in performance of his duties administratively 
and technically-Held, order is stigmatic and punitive-Could not have been 
passed without holding a regular inquiry and giving an opportunity of hearing 
to the employee-Order quashed-Administrative Law-Principles of natural 
justice. 
The appellant was appointed as Chief Executive in the establishment 
of the Punjab Co-operative Cotton Marketing and Spinning Mills Federa-
tion Ltd. His services were terminated during the period of probation by 
an order stating that he failed in the performance of his duties administra-
tively and technically. The writ petition filed by him was dismissed by the 
High Court holding that the order was not stigmatic. Aggrieved, the appel-
lant filed the present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1.1. The order terminating the services of the appellant, ex 
facie, is stigmatic as also punitive. The order is founded on the ground that 
the appellant had failed in the performance of his duties administratively 
and technically. It is for this reason that the services of the appellant were 
terminated. [132-D] 
1.2. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also entitled to cer-
tain protection and his services cannot he terminated arbitrarily, nor can 
those services be terminated in a punitive manner without complying with 
principles of natural justice. In the instant case, the order which on the 
face of it, is stigmatic, could not have been passed without holding a 
regular inquiry and giving an opportunity of bearing to the appellant, and 
is, therefore, quashed. The appellant shall he put back on duty with all 
consequential benefits. [132-G; 133-A-C] 
130 
_,__
V.P. AHUJA v. STATE [S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J.] 
131 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1965 of2000. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 26.3.99 of the Punjab & Haryana 
High Court in C.W.P. No. 4084 of 1998. 
M. Qamaruddin, Ambar Qamaruddin, Ajay Talesara and Mrs. M. 
Qamaruddin for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Jayshree Anand (Additional Advocate General, Punjab), G. 
Sivabalamurugan, Rajiv Dutta and Ashok K. Mahajan for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted. 
The appellant was appointed as Chief Executive in the Establishment 
~f Punjab Co-operative Cotton Marketing & Spinning Mills Federation 
Limited by order dated 29th of September, 1998. One of the terms of his 
appointment was that he would be on probation for a period of two years 
which could be extended further at the discretion of the Management. It 
further provided that during the probation period, the Management shall haw 
the right to terminate his services without notice. His services were termi-
nated by order dated 2.12.1998 reading as under :-
"ORDER 
Sh. V.P. Ahuja, S/o Late Sh. H.N. Ahuja was appointed on 
probation for 2 years as Chief Executive of the Coop. Spg. Mills 
Ltd., vide orders Endst. No. Spinfed/CCA/7844-45 dated 29.9.98 
and posted at Bacospin. However, he failed in the performance of 
his duties administratively and technically. Therefore; as per 
Clause-I of the said appointment order, the services of Sh. V.P. 
Ahuja are hereby terminated with immediate effect. 
Sd/-
(Managing Director) 
SPINFED" 
This order was challenged by the appellant in the Punjab and Haryana 
High Court through a Writ Petition which was dismissed by order dated 26th 
of March, 1999 reading as under :-
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
132 
SUPREME COUR-T REPORT~ -
[2000] 2 S.C.R. 
"Vide order dated 2.12.1998, Annexure-P-17 petitioner has been 
asked to quit, concededly during the period of probation. The 
impugned order is not stigmatic and nothing at all has been urged 
that may detract from such an order being passed during the 
currency of probation. Insofar as, thus, order, Annexure-P-17 is 
concerned, we fmd no infirmity therein." 
It is this order which is challenged in this appeal. 
The observation of the High Court that :-
"The impugned order is not stigmatic and nothin& at all has been 
urged that may detract from such an order being passed during the 
currency of probation." 
/is surprising, to say the least. The order by which the services of the appellant 
were terminated has already been quoted by us abov

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