Madras HC Upholds Reinstatement Of Army MTS Probationer, Says Termination Over Alleged Kerala Trip Without Inquiry Was Punitive

In brief

The question

1. Whether the respondent’s termination during extended probation was a non-punitive termination simpliciter or, in substance, punitive termination requiring an enquiry

The court held

The High Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the Tribunal’s order. It directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent with immediate effect and extend consequential retiral benefits, but denied salary for the period from termination until reinstatement.

It also directed

The directions were to be completed within four weeks of receipt of the order. The petitioners were granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, conduct an enquiry, provide the respondent an opportunity to be heard, and then pass appropriate orders.

01Facts

The respondent was appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff on 29 September 2016 on temporary terms, subject to probation. Her probation was extended by one year after she was found unsuitable for confirmation. During the extended period, the petitioners alleged that she was absent without permission and had travelled to Kerala; they terminated her service on 23 September 2019, effective 24 September 2019, without conducting an enquiry.

pp. 2–5

The Central Administrative Tribunal allowed her application and directed that she be restored to duty, without salary for the period between termination and reinstatement. The Union of India challenged that order under Article 226.

pp. 2–3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the respondent’s termination during extended probation was a non-punitive termination simpliciter or, in substance, punitive termination requiring an enquiry

p. 5

ii.2. Whether the Tribunal’s order setting aside the termination and directing reinstatement warranted interference under Article 226

pp. 5–6

03Law Applied

An order terminating a probationer may be based on an assessment of suitability; however, where the termination is founded on alleged misconduct and is punitive in substance, the employer must follow due process, including an enquiry and an opportunity to the employee to respond.

p. 4, 6

The Court relied on principles of natural justice and distinguished Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences, (2002) 1 SCC 520, which it considered inapplicable because the termination in that case followed an enquiry, whereas no enquiry had been held here.

p. 4, 6

The petition was considered under the High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 226.

p. 2

04Reasoning

The Court treated the allegation that the respondent had travelled to Kerala without permission during probation as the basis for her termination. Because the termination rested on that alleged misconduct, the petitioners ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings and held an enquiry before terminating her service.

pp. 5–6

Their failure to do so rendered the termination punitive in substance and contrary to natural justice; the Court therefore found no basis to interfere with the Tribunal’s decision.

pp. 5–6