Termination of probationer for unauthorized absence constitutes punishment requiring compliance with Article 311(2).

The respondent was appointed as a Trainee Skilled Artisan on compassionate grounds

He was unauthorizedly absent from duty from March 1, 2013, to October 3, 2013

Although the petitioners issued show-cause notices, the respondent failed to reply

Consequently, the petitioners terminated his services on June 17, 2014, and an appellate authority upheld this on May 15, 2015

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) subsequently quashed these orders, holding that the termination was based on misconduct rather than being a termination simplicitor, thus requiring a formal inquiry

The Union of India challenged the CAT's order via this writ petition

1. Whether the termination of a probationer/trainee on the grounds of unauthorized absence (misconduct) requires a reasonable opportunity of hearing and compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India

2. Whether the CAT erred in quashing the termination order on the basis that no departmental inquiry was conducted

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates a reasonable opportunity of hearing before dismissal or removal from service

Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, establishing that even a probationer is entitled to the protection of Article 311(2) if the termination is founded on misconduct

State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad, which held that if the government chooses to terminate a probationer by branding them as dishonest or incompetent (punitive action) rather than a simple discharge, it must follow the constitutional requirements of a formal inquiry

The court observed that the respondent was a Trainee Skilled Artisan whose services were ended specifically due to the "misconduct" of unauthorized absence

the court found that because the termination was explicitly triggered by alleged misconduct and preceded by show-cause notices regarding that conduct, it attracted the protections of Article 311(2)

Applying the ratio from Gopi Kishore Prasad, the court reasoned that the government opted for a punitive route rather than a simple discharge of an "unsuitable" employee

Since no formal departmental inquiry was conducted to prove the misconduct, the termination was procedurally and constitutionally flawed

The High Court affirmed the CAT’s order and dismissed the writ petition

The matter remains remitted to the petitioners to look afresh into the case in accordance with the law