Employee deemed confirmed if probation exceeds maximum limit; discharge without formal inquiry is illegal, rules Delhi High Court.

The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Librarian on November 11, 2019, with a two-year probation period extendable by one year.

Despite completing three years, her probation was extended "till further orders" on January 6, 2023, following reports of unsatisfactory conduct at the Prayagraj Campus.

Subsequently, at the Bhopal Campus, students and staff filed complaints of misconduct and rudeness.

An external committee found her guilty of misconduct in April 2024.

Following a show-cause notice, the Executive Council discharged her from service on December 9, 2024, treating her as a probationer and citing "grave misconduct" in a subsequent speaking order dated December 10, 2024.

1. Whether the Petitioner was governed by the specific probation clauses for teachers (11.1–11.3) of the UGC Regulations, 2018, or by Clause 11.5 read with DoPT instructions.

2. Whether the Petitioner could lawfully be treated as a probationer at the time of her discharge on December 9, 2024.

3. Whether the impugned discharge was a simpliciter termination or punitive in nature, necessitating a formal disciplinary inquiry.

The Court applied the UGC Regulations, 2018, specifically Clause 11.5, which subjects "other academic staff" (including Librarians) to Central Government (DoPT) rules.

Paragraph 27 of the DoPT Instructions (O.M. No. 28020/3/2018-Estt.(C)) mandates that no employee shall be kept on probation for more than double the normal period; if no order is passed within eight weeks of such expiry, the employee is "deemed" to have completed probation.

Principles from High Court of Madhya Pradesh v. Satya Narayan Jhavar and Durgabai Deshmukh Memorial School v. J.A.J. Vasu Sena differentiate between "deemed confirmation" and "express confirmation" categories.

Under the doctrine in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre, if an inquiry into specific misconduct forms the "foundation" (rather than mere motive) of a discharge, the order is punitive and requires a full disciplinary inquiry.

The Court determined that since the Petitioner was "academic staff," she fell under the DoPT instructions via Clause 11.5 of the UGC Regulations.

Since her normal probation was two years, the absolute maximum (double) period expired on November 25, 2023. Under Paragraph 27 of the DoPT rules, the University failed to issue a discharge or confirmation order within the subsequent eight-week window (ending January 20, 2024), resulting in a "deemed" successful completion of probation.

Consequently, the University's attempt to discharge her as a "probationer" in December 2024 was legally void as she had achieved regular status by operation of law.

The Court found the discharge was not simpliciter because the speaking order explicitly recorded findings of "guilt" and "grave misconduct" based on an internal committee report. These findings served as the "foundation" of her removal, making the termination punitive.

The University was therefore required to conduct a formal disciplinary inquiry under Statute 27 of the Central Sanskrit Universities Act, 2020, rather than a summary discharge.

The Court allowed the writ petition and quashed the orders dated January 6, 2023 (extension of probation), December 9, 2024 (discharge), and December 10, 2024 (speaking order). It directed the University to reinstate the Petitioner with continuity of service within four weeks and granted liberty to initiate fresh disciplinary proceedings under Statute 27.