Termination of probationer on grounds of alleged misconduct without departmental enquiry is punitive and legally unsustainable.

Respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant General Manager (Networking) on probation at Vijaya Bank (now Bank of Baroda) on 05.01.2004

During probation, he was suspended on 15.01.2005 for allegedly attempting to unauthorizedly remove confidential tender documents

His probation was extended twice due to "unsatisfactory performance"

On 12.04.2005, the Bank revoked the suspension but reserved the right to initiate disciplinary proceedings, which were never actually commenced

On 05.11.2005, the Bank terminated his services under Regulation 16(3)(a) of the Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Regulations, 1982, citing unsatisfactory performance

The High Court of Calcutta quashed the termination, holding it was based on irrelevant considerations

The Court applied Regulation 16(3)(a) of the Vijaya Bank (Officers’) Regulations, 1982, regarding the termination of direct appointees on probation

It relied on the doctrine established in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, which distinguishes between "motive" and "foundation" for terminating a probationer, holding that if a simple order of termination is founded on findings of misconduct without a regular enquiry, it is bad in law

The Court also applied principles from Sarita Choudhary v. High Court of M.P. and Mathew P. Thomas v. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd., stating that courts must look behind the "facade" of a termination simpliciter to determine if misconduct was the real basis for the order.

The Court observed that while the Bank claimed "unsatisfactory performance," the internal office note dated 05.11.2005 revealed that the Bank initially intended to initiate major penalty proceedings for misconduct (theft of files) but chose the "easier" path of termination under Regulation 16(3)(a) to bypass a formal enquiry

The Court scrutinized the three memos used to justify the termination: the first (23.07.2005) was contradicted by a high-praise letter from the Central Board of Direct Taxes; the second (14.09.2005) attributed delays to the employee that were actually caused by SBI’s technical faults; and the third (31.10.2005) was never communicated to the respondent, violating natural justice

Consequently, the Court found the alleged misconduct was the "foundation," not just the motive, making the termination punitive rather than a routine discharge

The Court dismissed the Bank's appeal and upheld the High Court's decision to quash the termination; ordered that Respondent No. 1 is entitled to 50% backwages from the date of termination until his date of superannuation, including all consequential benefits notionally, to be settled by Bank of Baroda within three months