IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NOS.17187 OF 2001 AND 18355 OF 2001 Date:02-12-2010 W.P.No.17187 of 2001:- Between:- P.Suresh Babu .. Petitioner And Vasundhara Mahila Co-op.Urban Bank Ltd. and another. .. Respondents And W.P.No.18355 of 2001:- Between:- P.Suresh Babu .. Petitioner And Vasundhara Mahila Co-op.Urban Bank Ltd. and another. .. Respondents COMMON ORDER:- The petitioner was appointed as the Chief Executive Officer in the Vasundhara Mahila Co-Operative Urban Bank Limited, Warangal on 21-09-2000. He was placed on probation for a period of one year. However, by proceeding dated 11-08-2001, the respondent bank terminated his services. Aggrieved thereby, he filed W.P.No.17187 of 2001 before this Court. By order dated 17-08-2001, this Court granted interim suspension of the said proceeding. While so, the respondent bank, by proceeding dated 29-08-2001, again resorted to termination of the petitioner’s services with immediate effect. Challenging the same, he filed W.P.No.18355 of 2001. In the first instance, this Court directed status quo existing as on 04-09-2001 to be maintained. Thereafter, by order dated 06-08-2002, this Court, taking note of the fact that the petitioner was terminated from service for unsatisfactory performance, observed that he had to await the adjudication of the writ petition and accordingly dismissed the miscellaneous petition filed by him. The first termination order dated 11-08-2001 was punitive in nature as the first respondent bank based its action upon the lapses and irregularities said to have been committed by the petitioner. This Order was therefore not sustainable in law as no prior opportunity or notice had been afforded to the petitioner. However, no such illegality taints the second termination embodied in the order dated 29-08-2001. This order states to the effect that the petitioner’s performance was found to be unsatisfactory and accordingly, his services were terminated. As the petitioner was still a probationer in the service, it was open to the respondent bank to do so without putting the petitioner on notice. The action of the respondent bank cannot, therefore, be termed to be illegal or unsustainable. W.P.No.17187 of 2001 is dismissed as infructuous as the petitioner’s services were terminated thereafter under the proceeding dated 29-08-2001. W.P.No.18355 of 2001 is found to be without merit as the termination simpliciter of the petitioner’s services during his probation under the order dated 29-08-2001 is not illegal on any count. This Writ Petition is also dismissed accordingly. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. _________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J 2nd December 2010. AMD