Continued service beyond unextended probation deems an employee confirmed; termination thereafter requires disciplinary proceedings.

The applicant was appointed by RITES Ltd. as Engineer (Electrical) pursuant to an offer letter dated 4 September 2020, carrying a one-year probationary period, extendable in accordance with the applicable rules.

The RITES Recruitment Rules provided that, upon successful completion of probation and prescribed training, an employee would be deemed regularised and confirmed; they also contemplated review of performance and a confirmation test.

No order extending the applicant’s probation was issued after the expiry of the one-year period on 3 September 2021.

During police verification, RITES received information concerning an FIR against the applicant under Sections 147, 323, 504, 506 and 452 IPC.

The applicant stated that he had mistakenly believed that the proceedings had concluded and that the non-disclosure was inadvertent.

The criminal case ultimately resulted in the applicant’s acquittal on 20 October 2023.

RITES issued a show-cause notice dated 2 April 2024 alleging non-disclosure of the criminal case in the police-verification undertaking.

Thereafter, RITES terminated his services with immediate effect from 28 May 2024 under Clause 10 of the terms and conditions of the offer letter, without conducting departmental proceedings.

Whether the applicant was deemed to have been regularised and confirmed upon completion of the one-year probationary period, in the absence of any order extending probation or confirming him?

Whether RITES could terminate the applicant’s services under the probationary/contractual termination clause after the expiry of the probationary period?

Whether the termination, having been preceded by allegations of suppression of material information, was punitive and could lawfully be imposed without departmental proceedings and an opportunity of defence?

Whether the applicant’s alleged non-disclosure of the criminal case justified termination notwithstanding his acquittal and the absence of a disciplinary inquiry?

The Tribunal applied the RITES Recruitment Rules, particularly the provision that an employee is deemed regularised and confirmed upon successful completion of probation and prescribed training.

It also relied on the RITES Conduct, Discipline and Appeal Rules, 1980, under which furnishing false information relating to a matter germane to employment may constitute misconduct and must be dealt with through the applicable disciplinary process.

Clause 23(v) of the applicable terms governed termination during probation, temporary or contractual employment, reduction of establishment and other specified situations; the Tribunal held that the clause authorising termination of a probationer could not be invoked after the applicant had ceased to be a probationer.

The Tribunal relied on State of Punjab v. Dharam Singh, (1968) 3 SCR 1 : AIR 1968 SC 1210, for the principle that where the maximum probationary period has expired and the employee continues in service without extension, confirmation may be inferred by implication.

It further relied on Sandeep Kumar v. G.B. Pant Institute of Engineering, Civil Appeals arising from SLP Nos. 8788–8789 of 2023, decided on 16 April 2024, for the principle that termination after completion of probation, without extension and without disciplinary proceedings where the action is punitive, is legally unsustainable.

The Tribunal also referred to Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab on the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination, and Jaswantsingh Pratapsingh Jadeja v. Rajkot Municipal Corporation, (2007) 10 SCC 71, on the circumstances in which allegations or surrounding circumstances render a termination stigmatic and punitive.

The Tribunal held that the applicant’s initial one-year probation expired on 3 September 2021 and that RITES produced no material showing a valid extension of probation.

In view of the express deeming provision in the Recruitment Rules, the applicant’s continued service thereafter resulted in deemed regularisation and confirmation.

His subsequent inclusion in the promotion order dated 6 November 2023 further supported the conclusion that RITES treated him as an employee beyond the probationary stage, irrespective of whether his joining on the promotional post was ultimately accepted.

Although the termination order itself did not state the reasons, the show-cause notice and the respondents’ pleadings demonstrated that the real basis of the action was the alleged suppression of the criminal case.

The issue therefore concerned alleged misconduct—namely, furnishing false or incomplete information germane to employment—and could not be addressed through a mere discharge under the probation clause.

Once the applicant was treated as a confirmed employee, RITES was required to determine through departmental proceedings whether the non-disclosure was deliberate, whether it amounted to misconduct, and what penalty, if any, was warranted.

The applicant’s explanation of inadvertent non-disclosure, the family-related nature of the criminal case and his subsequent acquittal were relevant matters requiring proper adjudication rather than summary termination.

Accordingly, the termination could not be characterised as termination simpliciter and was held punitive and procedurally invalid.

It held that the applicant had been deemed regularised and confirmed after completion of the prescribed probationary period, and that RITES could not terminate him under the clause applicable to probationers.

Since the termination was founded on alleged suppression of material information, RITES was required to initiate appropriate departmental proceedings and provide the applicant an opportunity of defence.

The termination order dated 28 May 2024 was accordingly quashed and set aside.

The applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with law, and RITES was granted liberty to initiate departmental proceedings, if warranted, treating him as a regular employee.

The OA was allowed; pending MAs were disposed of and there was no order as to costs.