VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

246 DECISION - 38
liberally relied upon without producing the witnesses at the formal
inquiry so that the petitioner would get an opportunity to cross-examine
them. The disciplinary authority is not entitled to rely on evidence
given at the fact-finding stage. The present inquiry has been
conducted in a manner contrary to law.
(38)
Termination — of probationer
An order discharging a probationer following upon
an enquiry to ascertain whether he was fit to be
confirmed is not one by way of punishment and
would not attract Art. 311(2) of Constitution.
State of Orissa vs. Ram Narayan Das,
AIR 1961 SC 177
The Supreme Court held that a probationer can be discharged
in the manner provided in the rules governing him. Mere termination
of employment does not carry with it any evil consequences such as
forfeiture of pay and allowances, loss of seniority, stoppage or
postponement of future chances of promotion etc. An order discharging
a public servant, even if a probationer, in an enquiry on charges of
misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification may
appropriately be regarded as one by way of punishment but an order
discharging a probationer, following upon an enquiry to ascertain
whether he was fit to be confirmed is not of that nature.
The respondent had no right to the post held by him. Under the
terms of his employment, he could be discharged in the matter provided
by the Rules. A mere termination of employment does not carry with it
any evil consequences. The use of the expression “discharged” in the
order terminating employment of a public servant is not decisive; it may
in certain cases amount to dismissal. If a confirmed public servant
holding a substantive post is discharged the order would amount to
dismissal or removal from service. Whether it amounts to dismissal,
depends upon the nature of the enquiry, if any, the proceedings taken
therein and the substance of the final order passed on such enquiry.