Termination of a probationer for unsuitability and non-disclosure of criminal history constitutes termination simpliciter, not punishment.

The petitioner was appointed as a Watchman in the respondent department on 21.07.2008 and joined on 29.08.2008.

His probation was extended twice: once for a year on 26.08.2009 and again for six months on 04.11.2010.

On 26.08.2011, the respondents terminated his services by invoking conditions 2 and 3 of the appointment letter, which allowed termination without notice or assigned reasons during probation.

The respondents contended that the petitioner had suppressed his criminal history (an offence under Section 324/34 IPC) in his application and affidavit, and had exhibited poor conduct and negligence.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Jabalpur, dismissed the petitioner’s challenge on 20.03.2025, leading to this Miscellaneous Petition.

Whether the extension of probation beyond two years resulted in the petitioner attaining the status of a confirmed employee.

Whether the termination order was punitive/stigmatic in nature, necessitated a departmental inquiry, and was vitiated by malafides.

Whether the failure to decide the statutory appeal warranted interference with the impugned order.

The court primarily applied the contractual conditions of the appointment letter, specifically Condition 3, which permits termination during probation without notice or assigning reasons.

It relied on the principle that an employee does not automatically become "confirmed" merely by the expiry of a probation period unless a specific order of confirmation is passed.

The court further applied the precedent from Chaitanya Prakash v. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 62, which establishes that termination based on unsuitability or assessment of performance during probation is termination simpliciter and not a punitive/stigmatic action requiring a formal departmental inquiry.

The High Court observed that the petitioner failed to prove he had attained confirmed status, noting that the DoP&T Memorandum of 2022 cited by the petitioner was not applicable to a 2011 termination.

The court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts regarding a criminal case (Crime No. 234/99) in his initial affidavit.

The court reasoned that since the petitioner's performance was found unsuitable due to negligence and threats to co-workers, the termination was a "termination simpliciter" for unsuitability rather than a punishment for misconduct.

Consequently, no departmental inquiry was required under the law.

Regarding the statutory appeal, the court noted that the petitioner failed to produce any evidence or memo of appeal to substantiate that an appeal had actually been filed.

The court found no violation of Articles 14 or 21 of the Constitution and no perversity in the CAT’s order.

The petition was dismissed, and the CAT’s order dated 20.03.2025 was upheld.