IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1027 of 1991 Date of Decision: 02.12.2010 Gaje Singh and others ........Petitioners Versus S.M. Hindu High School, Sonepat and another .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Present: None. ****** RANJAN GOGOI, J. (ORAL) The challenge in the writ petition is against three identical orders dated 24.05.1990 by which the service of each of the three writ petitioners has been dispensed with during the period of their extended probation. The brief facts are as follows:- The three writ petitioners were appointed as Science Teachers in the respondent's school (Aided School) on different dates in the years 1987 and 1988. According to the petitioners, they had accompanied a school team on an excursion to South India from 03.06.1989 to 25.06.1989. Allegations of mis-conduct in the course of the said excursion were leveled against the petitioners to which they submitted their replies. Thereafter, vide order dated 24.11.1989 (Annexure P-7), the probation period of the petitioners was extended for one year i.e. from 25.11.1989 to 24.11.1990. By another order Civil Writ Petition No.1027 of 1991 -2- dated 07.04.1990 (Annexure P-8), each of the petitioners were warned not to repeat such act of mis-conduct in the future. Thereafter, the impugned orders dated 24.05.1990 have been passed, which have been assailed in the present writ petition. A perusal of the pleadings contained in the writ petition would go to show that the primary contention of the petitioners is to the effect that their alleged mis-conduct was the foundation for the impugned orders dated 24.05.1990 and that no prejudicial action could have been taken against the petitioners on the basis of the alleged mis-conduct without holding an enquiry. The respondents have filed an affidavit/reply in the case wherein after reciting the facts, as noticed above, it has been asserted that the impugned orders are innocuous and do not cast any stigma on the petitioners. It is further contended that the said orders are orders of termination simpliciter and the same having been passed during the probation period no interference will be called for by the Court. The principles of law governing discharge of a probationer are no longer res integra. An order of termination simpliciter can be examined by the Court by lifting the veil to determine the motive and the foundation for such an order. If the termination even by taking into account the act of mis-conduct is not by way of a punishment, the employer would be entitled to discharge the probationer by an order of termination simpliciter. In the present case, allegations of mis-conduct leveled against the petitioners ended with a decision to extend the probation period and by warning them be careful in future. Civil Writ Petition No.1027 of 1991 -3- Thereafter, the employer considered the suitability of the petitioners to be retained in employment for confirmation. The decision on the said score was against the petitioners. The course of action adopted by the employer would be permissible keeping in mind the principles governing the rights of an employee on probation. That apart, no stigma has been cast on the petitioners by the impugned orders. The Court will, therefore, have to hold that the impugned orders have not been passed as a measure of punishment but they are orders of termination simpliciter. Consequently and in view of the following discussions this writ petition is without any merit or substance. It is accordingly dismissed. No costs. December 02, 2010 (RANJAN GOGOI) Gagan JUDGE