High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Shyam Bihari Chaubey v. U.P.P.S.C. & Others - WRIT - A No. 18415 of 1987  RD-AH 15631 (7 September 2006)
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 18415 of 1987
Shyam Behari Chaube
U.P. Public Service Tribunal & Ors.
Hon'ble Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J.
Hon'ble Pankaj Mithal, J.
The petitioner ha filed the present writ petition challenging the judgment and order of the U.P. Public Services Tribunal, Lucknow dated 26/12/1985 (Annex-6) to the petition.
The petitioner was working on probation in the P.A.C. He was brought on probation for two years w.e.f. 01/8/1978. He was never confirmed and on account of an incident of ''Mar Peet' with the officer he was served upon a show cause notice dated 03/6/1980. After considering the reply of the petitioner to the show cause notice, an order of discharge was passed against him on 14th July, 1980. His representation against the order of discharge was also rejected by the Deputy Inspector General of Police dated 17/11/1980. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a Claim Petition No. 911 (I/V) 1980 before the Tribunal. The said claim petition has been rejected by the impugned order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Srivastava has submitted that the petitioner was appointed on a clear vacancy on a two year probation and after completion of probation he was a confirmed employee, and therefore his services could not have been terminated without holding a disciplinary inquiry against him. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is devoid of merit, in as much as there is nothing on record to establish that the services of the petitioner were ever confirmed. Petitioner was put on probation for two years from 01/8/1978, as per the entry in his service record vide order dated 10th May, 1979. There is no rule providing for automatic confirmation to the petitioner on completion of initial period of probation. In the absence of any such rule, it cannot be held that the petitioner has been confirmed. Accordingly, the Tribunal committed no error in treating the petitioner as a probationer and as such holding that no regular disciplinary inquiry was necessary before passing the order of discharge against the petitioner.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. & Ors, AIR 2000 SC 1706, while interpreting the Regulation 541 of U.P. Police Regulations has held that Regulation does not prescribe for any maximum period of probation and therefore an employee does not acquire permanent status by mere successful completion of two years probation and the permanent status can only be acquired by an order of confirmation. Admittedly, in the present case there is no order of confirmation in favour of the petitioner.
More over, in the instant case there is no violation either of principles of natural justice or Regulation 541 (2), in as much as before passing the order of discharge a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and his reply was duly considered, therefore, in such circumstances, the action of discharge would not amount to be punitive in nature as has been held in Chandra Prakash Shahi's case (supra).
In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of any merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.