VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

716 DECISION - 353
(353)
Termination — of probationer
No need to give hearing before termination of probation.
Unit Trust of India vs. T. Bijaya Kumar,
1992 (5) SLR SC 855
The service of the respondent, Manager (Finance), Unit Trust
of India, probationer, was terminated by an order simpliciter. A single
Judge of the High Court of Calcutta quashed the order holding that it
was stigmatic in character and a Division Bench of the High Court
confirmed in appeal. The Supreme Court observed that there is
nothing on record to support the contention that the order suffers
from the vice of bias, prejudice or mala fides. There is nothing in the
order to conclude that it is penal or that it stigmatises the respondent.
The reason which weighed with the Management was his unsuitability
for the job based on his unsatisfactory performance during the
probation period. A probationer has no right to the post held by him.
The very purpose of placing a person on probation is to try him during
the probation period to assess his suitability for the job. An order of
discharge is not an order of punishment and there was no question
of giving a hearing before termination of service.
(354)
Order — provision of law, non-mention of
Non-mention of provision of law does not invalidate the order.
Union of India vs. Khazan Singh,
1992(6) SLR SC 750
It is settled proposition of law that when the exercise of power
can be justified under any provision of law, then non-mention of the
said provision in the order cannot invalidate the same. The Supreme
Court held that the appellate authority validly exercised its powers
under Rule 23(1)(f) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules,
1983, though the order did not mention as to under which sub-rule
25(1), the appeal was being disposed of.