Appeal No 1955 of 1970
Appeal by Special Leave from the judgement  other dated the 5th November 1969 of the Punjab  Harayana High Court in Civil Write No 309 of 1969
R K Garg section C Agarwala and V J Francis for the appellant
775 V C Mahajan and 0
P Shorma for the respondents
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY CJ
This is an appeal by special leave from the judgment dated 5 November 1969 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
The only person is whether the order of termination of the service of the appellant who was a probationer is in violation of Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service Punishment  Appeal Rules 1952
The appellant was selected by the Public Service Commission as a direct recruit on 20 May 1965
He was appointed on 26 May  1965
He joined as a probationer
The period of probation was two years
Rule 8b of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 states that the services of a member recruited by direct appointment may be dispensed with by the Government on his failing to pass the final examination at the end of his period of training or on his being reported on during or at the end of his period of probation as unfit for appointment
The order terminating the services of the appellant was as follows The President of India is pleased to dispense with the service of Shri Hari Singh Mann Probationery Deputy Superintendent of Police Amritsar on the expiry of his extended period of probation with effect from 2 2 1969AN under rule 8b of the Punjab Police Service Rules 1959 having considered him unfit for appointment to the State Police Service
The period from 20 5 68 to 2 8 68 which has been treated as leave of the kind due has been excluded from the period of trial Probation
 The two contentions which have been advanced before the High Court were repeated here
First the order of termination was passed on 30 January 1969 when the petitioner by reason of expiry of three years stood confirmed on 1920 November 1968
Second the order of termination was one of punishment and the appellant shouldtherefore under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service Punishment and Appeal Rules have been given opportunity to show cause against the order of termination
Under the aforesaid Police Service Rule 8b proviso the Government could extend the period of probation by not more than one year
The appellant was appointed on 20 May 1965 on two years probation
On 1 July 1967 there was an order extending the period of probation by one year
On 20 May 1968 there was an order terminating the services of the petitioner
on 20 July
1968 there was an order revoking the order of termination and extending the period of probation for six months from 20 May 1968
The order of termination was on 30 January 1969
The appellant was on leave from 20 May 1968 to 2 August 1968
The 776 Government excluded the period of leave from the period of probation
The object of extending the period of probation is to find out whether the appellant was a fit person
The appellant could not be confirmed till the period of probation to find out the fitness of the appellant expired
It cannot therefore be held that the appellant stood confirmed on 1920 November 1968 before the period of probation expired in January 1969
The appellant relied on Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules 1952
Rule 9 is as follows Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a probationer whether during or at the end of the period of probation for any specific fault or on account of the un satisfactory record or unfavourable reports implying the unsuitability for the service the probationer shall be apprised of the grounds of such proposal and given an opportunity to show cause against it before orders are passed by the authority competent to terminate the appointment
If Punishment Rule 9 applies the services of the appellant could not be terminated without complying with the previsions thereof
The appellant contended that the order of termination stated that the appellant was considered unfit for appointment and therefore it amounts to punishment to attract rule 9
The appellant extracted a statement from the affidavit of the Inspector General of Police in answer to the appellant s petition in the High Court that the appellant s record during the period of probation was unsatisfactory Reliance is placed on rule 9 where it is said that if the termination of the Services of a probationer be on account of unsatisfactory record he shall be given an opportunity to show cause against it
The respondent relied on rule 11 of the Punjab Police Service Rules where it is stated that in matters relating to discipline penalties and appeals members of the Service shall be governed by the Punjab Civil Services Punishment and Appeal Rules
Therefore it is said by the respondent that Rules 8 and 11 of the Punjab Police Service Rules show that termination of probation which is dealt with in rule 8 is different from matters relating to penalties which are dealt with in rule II of the Punjab Police Service Rules
Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9 of the Punishment Rules
It is obvious that at the time of confirmation fitness is a matter to be considered
The order terminating the services is unfitness for appointment at the time of confirmation it is not passed on the ground of any turpitude like misconduct or inefficiency
To hold that the words unfit to be appointed are a Stigma would rob the authorities of the power to judge fitness for work or suitability to the post at the time of confirmation
777 Termination of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any temperamental or other defect not involving moral turpitude is not a stigma which can be called discharge by punishment
Fitness for the job is one of the most important reasons for confirmation
The facts and circumstances do not show that there is any stigma attached to the order of termination
For these reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed
Parties will pay and bear their own costs
VMK Appeal Dismissed


Summary:
The appellant was appointed on 20 May 1965 on two years  probation
On 1 July 1967 there was an order extending the period of probation by one year
On May 20 1968 there was an order terminating the services of the petitioner
On July 20 1968 there was an order revoking the order of termination and extending the period of probation for six months from 20th May 1968
The order of termination was on Jan 30 1969
This order recited that having considered him unfit for appointment to the State Police Service the services of the appellant are dispensed with on the expiry of his extended period of probation
Two contentions were raised by the appellant in the High Court
First the order of termination was passed on Jan 30 1969 when the petitioner
by reason of expiry of 3 years stood confirmed on 1920 November 1968 and Second the order of termination was one of punishment and the appellant should have been given an opportunity to show cause against the order of termination under Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service Punishment and Appeal Rules 1952
These contentions were rejected by the High Court
Hence the appeal to this Court by Special Leave
Dismissing the appeal HELD The object of extending the period of probation is to find out whether the appellant was a fit person
The appellant could not be confirmed till the period of probation expired
It cannot therefore be held that the appellant stood confirmed on 1920 November 1968 before the period of probaition expired in January 1969
776A B 2 Termination on account of unsatisfactory record will attract rule 9 of the Punishment Rules
Fitness was a matter to be considered at the time of confirmation
The order terminating the services is unfitness for appointment and not on the ground of any turpitude to attract Rule 9 of the Punishment Rules 1952
To hold that the words unfit to be appointed mentioned in the order of termination are a stigma would deprive the authorities to judge fitness for work or suitability to a post at the time of confirmation
Termination of services on account of inadequacy for the job or for any tompramental or other defect not involving moral turpitude is not a stigma which can be called discharge by punishment
Fitness for the job is one
of the most important reasons for confirmation
The facts and circumstances do not show that there was any stigma attached to the order of termination and therefore Rule 9 of the Punjab Civil Service Punishment  Appeal Rules 1952 is not attracted in the present case
7760 777B