Termination Order Of Probationer On Allegations Of Misconduct Is Punitive, Cannot Be Passed Without Enquiry: Calcutta High Court

A Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, comprising Justice Tapabrata Chakraborty and Justice Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, has dismissed an appeal filed by the Board of Governors of the Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering & Technology, upholding the order of a single Judge that quashed the termination of the Institute's Superintendent, Deb Halder, during his probationary period.

The appeal arose from an order dated 3rd September 2018 in WP 31413 (W) of 2017, wherein the single Judge set aside Deb Halder's termination, holding that the termination order was neither based on competence nor efficiency and had been passed without affording him an opportunity to explain. The Institute contended that Deb had suppressed information regarding a prior police case at the time of his appointment and that a subsequent police case in 2015 created unrest in the Institute. The Institute also relied on alleged unauthorized absence from duties and irregularities in a tender process involving approximately Rs. 2.87 crore as grounds for termination.

The Board argued that termination during probation is a managerial prerogative to assess suitability and competence and relied on precedents including High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar (2001) 7 SCC 161 and Satish Chandra Yadav v. Union of India (2023) 7 SCC 536 to assert that subsequent criminal involvement or administrative irregularities could justify termination. It was also contended that Deb's probationary appointment was provisional and could be terminated at any time.

Deb Halder, on the other hand, submitted that he had disclosed all prior police cases in his attestation form, that the alleged unauthorized absence was not willful and coincided with additional duties assigned to him, and that the tender-related allegations were irrelevant as the tender had been scrapped. He further contended that the termination order was punitive in nature, issued without following principles of natural justice, and based on unfounded allegations. Reliance was placed on judgments such as Partha Biswas v. Union of India (2024 SCC Online Cal 1457), Jagdish Mitter v. Union of India (AIR 1964 SC 449), and Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60.

The Division Bench observed that while termination of a probationer under the rules is ordinarily not considered dismissal, removal, or punitive, if the order casts aspersions on the employee's character or integrity, it assumes a punitive or stigmatic character. The Court noted that the termination order specifically mentioned unauthorized absence and involvement in a tender process, allegations which were found to be unfounded or irrelevant on the record. It was further observed that Deb had been assigned additional responsibilities during the alleged period of absence, and that the tender in question had been scrapped, rendering the allegations baseless.

The Court emphasized that prior disclosures of police cases by Deb negated the Institute's claim of suppression of information, and that no opportunity had been provided to Deb to explain or defend against the allegations, violating principles of natural justice. The Court distinguished precedents relied upon by the appellants, holding that factual distinctions rendered them inapplicable.

The Division Bench concluded that the impugned order of termination could not be construed as a simple discharge but was clearly punitive in nature, and thus the single Judge was justified in quashing it. The appeal and any connected applications were dismissed, and a prayer for stay of operation of the judgment was rejected.

Case: The Board of Governors, Ghani Khan Choudhury Institute of Engineering & Technology & Ors. Versus Deb Halder & Ors

Case No: FMA 2046 of 2018

Click here to read order