IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. LPA No. 1168 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: July 15, 2011 Tansen …Appellant Versus High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh and another …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE M HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. . JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR KUMAR HON'B HON'B HON'B HON'BLE M LE M LE M LE MR. JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE . JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH GURDEV SINGH Present: Mr. Manohar Lall, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR M.M. KUMAR, J.J.J.J. 1. The unsuccessful petitioner-appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent challenging order dated 5.4.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition. 2. The undisputed facts are that on 26.3.2008, the petitioner-appellant was appointed as a Process Server in the office of District and Sessions Judge, Ambala. He joined the service on 2.4.2008 and was to remain on probation for a period of two years. His period of probation was to expire on 1.4.2010, however, the District Judge-respondent No. 2 passed an order dated 4.2.2010, extending the period of probation of the petitioner-appellant for another one year (P-2). LPA No. 1168 of 2011 (O&M) 2 3. The petitioner-appellant along with two other Process Servers was assigned the duties of Chokidars in the Judicial Court Complex Ambala on 17/18.3.2009. A theft had taken place resulting loss of `7,48,138/-. Explanation of the petitioner-appellant was sought by issuance of a show cause notice dated 3.6.2010 (P-4) to which he submitted his reply (P-5). On 22.6.2010, the District and Sessions Judge, Ambala, dispensed with his services during extended period of probation by an order simplicitor. A service appeal was preferred by the petitioner-appellant, which was rejected by the Administrative Judge of the Ambala Sessions Division, vide order dated 24.12.2010 (P-8 Colly). 4. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-appellant filed CWP No. 6045 of 2011. Before the learned Single Judge it was urged that since the action in dispensing with the services of the petitioner- appellant is based on a misconduct, the competent authority was required to hold an inquiry to prove the same. However, the learned Single Judge repelled the said contention by observing as under: “ In my considered opinion, the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, is wholly misconceived. The petitioner was a probationer and his work and conduct was not found to be satisfactory while extending the period of probation for another one year. The incident of theft took place due to negligence and careless performance of duties while a proven misconduct would invite imposition of penalty under the LPA No. 1168 of 2011 (O&M) 3 Haryana Civil Service (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1970. Mere negligence in performance of duties by a probationer may not always be treated as a misconduct, rather the competent authority will be well within its right to draw an inference of unsatisfactory performance of duties by such a probationer. It is the formation of such an opinion regarding unsatisfactory work and conduct of the petitioner that his services were dispensed with by passing an innocuous order which perse is not stigmatic.” 5. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant and perusing the paper book with his able assistance, we are of the considered view that there is no merit in the instant appeal warranting admission. It is well settled principle of law that services of an employee can be dispensed with during the operation of the probation period even without show cause or holding any inquiry. The rationale behind this principle is that a probationer does not have any substantive right to hold the post and he is not entitled to protection under Article 311 of the Constitution. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kamal Nayan Kamal Nayan Kamal Nayan Kamal Nayan Mishra Mishra Mishra Mishra v. v. v. v. State of M.P. State of M.P. State of M.P. State of M.P., (2010) 2 SCC 169 , (2010) 2 SCC 169 , (2010) 2 SCC 169 , (2010) 2 SCC 169. It is equally well settled that even compliance of principles of natural justice is not necessary while terminating/dispensing the service of an employee during his probation period. If the competent authority after assessment of work and conduct of an employee during the LPA No. 1168 of 2011 (O&M) 4 period of his probation is satisfied and passes an order of termination simplicitor recording such satisfaction regarding the unsatisfactory service of the employee, the order could not be held to be erroneous or illegal on the ground that it amounts to a stigmatic order or casts any aspersion on the employee. For the aforementioned proposition reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Rajesh Koh Rajesh Koh Rajesh Koh Rajesh Kohlililili v. v. v. v. High Court of J&K High Court of J&K High Court of J&K High Court of J&K, (2010) 12 SCC 783 , (2010) 12 SCC 783 , (2010) 12 SCC 783 , (2010) 12 SCC 783. Therefore, we find no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, this appeal fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) (GURDEV SINGH) July 1 July 1 July 1 July 15, 2011 , 2011 , 2011 , 2011 JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE JUDGE PKapoor