A probationer may be terminated for unsuitability without inquiry absent a finding of misconduct.

Pawan Kumar was appointed as a Fitter (Semi Skilled) on probation for two years, with provision for extension and consideration of confirmation only upon satisfactory completion of probation.

Following assessments of unsatisfactory performance and substantial absence, his probation was extended on three occasions; he received warnings and was ultimately issued a show-cause notice, to which he replied.

The appointing authority terminated his services on 30 May 2015, concluding that his probation could not be treated as satisfactorily completed.

The Central Administrative Tribunal dismissed his challenge to the termination. Kumar then petitioned the High Court under Article 227, alleging, among other things, that the termination was stigmatic and punitive, that he had been denied a regular inquiry and relevant reports, and that his absences were covered by sanctioned or regularised leave.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s decision upholding termination of Kumar’s probationary employment disclosed an error warranting interference under Article 227

2. Whether the termination was punitive or stigmatic in substance, such that a regular departmental inquiry was required

3. Whether the petitioner was denied natural justice, or whether sanctioned or regularised leave prevented his absences from being considered in assessing his suitability for confirmation

4. Whether the petitioner was deemed confirmed because of the manner or timing of the extensions of his probation

Article 227 confers supervisory, not appellate, jurisdiction; interference is warranted for jurisdictional error, patent error of law, perversity, or a natural-justice violation causing failure of justice, not merely because another view is possible.

Under Kedar Nath Bahl v. State of Punjab, expiry of a specified probation period does not itself result in automatic confirmation unless the appointment terms or applicable service rules so provide.

Under Krishnadevaraya Education Trust v. L.A. Balakrishna, an employer may terminate a probationer found unsuitable; an order based on unsatisfactory suitability is not necessarily punitive merely because the employer gives reasons.

A probationer’s overall regularity and dependability may be considered in assessing suitability even where leave has been sanctioned or regularised; a disciplinary inquiry is required where the termination is founded on proved misconduct as punishment, rather than an assessment of suitability.

The appointment terms provided for possible extension of probation and did not provide for automatic confirmation; no confirmation order or applicable rule establishing deemed confirmation was identified.

The High Court read the termination order as an assessment that Kumar remained unsuitable after repeated extensions, warnings, and substantial absences—not as a finding of guilt or imposition of a penalty.

The references to workplace incidents were treated as part of the suitability assessment, while persistent absence independently supported the decision.

The unresolved Rule 14 disciplinary proceeding neither exonerated Kumar nor formed the basis of the termination.

The show-cause notice and consideration of Kumar’s reply afforded an opportunity to respond; the Court found no demonstrated prejudice from non-supply of the Head of Section reports.

Sanction or regularisation of leave did not preclude consideration of the extent of absence when assessing suitability.

The Tribunal’s decision therefore disclosed no ground for supervisory interference.

The Tribunal’s order was affirmed, the miscellaneous petition was dismissed, and there was no order as to costs.