REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 7841-7842 OF 2012
State Bank of India and others
…Appellants
versus
Palak Modi and another …Respondents
J U D G M E N T
G. S. Singhvi, J.
1. Whether the alleged use of unfair means by Palak Modi and Prabhat
Dixit (hereinafter described as ‘the private respondents’) in the test
held by appellant No.1 – State Bank of India (for short, ‘the Bank’)
constituted the foundation of the decision taken by General Manager (NW-
I), State Bank of India, Human Resource Department (respondent No.3) to
terminate their services under Rule 16(3) of the State Bank of India
(Officers’ Service) Rules, 1992 (for short, ‘the Rules’)
is the pivotal
question which arises for consideration in these appeals filed against
order dated 17.11.2011 passed by the Allahabad High Court in Writ
Petition Nos.1298/2011 and 1512/2011.
2. In response to an advertisement issued by appellant No.1, which was
published on 1.7.2008,
the private respondents applied for appointment as
Probationary Officers.
They appeared in the two-tier examination held by
the Bank, which was followed by group discussion and interview.
On being
declared successful, the private respondents were appointed as
Probationary Officers vide letters dated 5.5.2006, paragraph 5 of which
reads as under:
“5. You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date
of appointment. Your confirmation in the Bank shall be subject to:
(a) Satisfactory reports from our own sources as well as from
District Authorities regarding your character and antecedents.
(b) Satisfactory completion of the in-service training during
probation.
(c) Satisfactory performance in the evaluation tests to be
conducted by the Bank during the probation period. Your failure in
evaluation tests twice will make you unfit for continuing in Bank's
service and in that eventuality, your appointment will be cancelled
and your services terminated by the Bank.”
3. Vide letter dated 22.12.2010 of Deputy Managing Director and
Corporate Development Officer of the Bank, the Probationary Officers of
2009-10 batch were informed that they are due for confirmation on
15.5.2011 and, therefore, they may appear in the test proposed to be
conducted on 27.2.2011. Paragraph 2 of that letter which has bearing on
the decision of these appeals reads as under:
“2. The relative extract from the extant policy for confirmation of
probationary officers is reproduced below:-
i) The confirmation test shall be held after 21 months from the
date of appointment of the probationary officers (during the
probation period)
ii) Candidates scoring a minimum of 75% marks in the written test
would qualify for the further process that will include group
discussion and interview. Candidates scoring minimum 75% marks
in-group discussion/interview also shall be confirmed and placed
in the grade of MMGS-II. Those scoring less than 75% marks but
minimum 50% (45% for SC/ST/PWD) marks in the written test shall
be confirmed in the grade of JMGS-I. Candidates scoring less
than 50% (45% for SC/ST/PWD) marks will be given two options as
under:
OPTION-I
Candidate will be required to appear in another confirmation
test on or before completion of 24th month of his/her probation
and in the event of not qualifying in the re-test his/her
services will be terminated with immediate effect and he/she
will be paid one month's emoluments in lieu of one month's
notice in terms of Rule 16(3)(a) of SBI Officer's Service Rule
read with the present policy of confirmation of Probationary
officers as application hitherto.
OPTION-II
Candidate's probation will be extended by a further period of
maximum one year in terms of two periods of six months each
(extending the total probation period to a maximum of 36 months)
with the provision to appear in 02 more confirmation tests at 06
monthly intervals i.e. 02nd test in 27th month & 03rd test in
33rd month of his/her probation respectively with the following
conditions:-
In the event of:
Passing the proposed 02nd test after 27th month of probation
candidate will be confirmed as JMGS-I on completion of 30th
month of probation including extended period of probation of 06
months.
The extended period of probation of six months will,
however, not to be counted for service seniority.
Failing in the 02nd test put passing the proposed 03rd test
after 33rd month of his/her probation he/she will be confirmed
as JMGS-I on completion of 36th month of probation including the
extended period of probation of one year. The extended period of
probation of one-year will, however, not be counted for service
seniority.
Failing in the proposed 03rd test administered in 33rd month of
his/her probation, 04 increments in basic salary given to
him/her on appointment, as Probationary Officer will be
withdrawn and he/she will be absorbed as Officer JMGS-I on
completion of 36th month of probation period including the
extended period of probation of one year.
The extended period of
probation of one year will not be counted for service seniority.
In all the above cases, as mentioned in Option II, where
probation period is extended, the annual increment date will be
shifted by skipping the extended probation period of six or
twelve months, as the case may be.
"Further, the service rendered by him/her during extended
probation period of six or twelve months will also not be
counted as eligible service for seniority as well as for
next promotion."
The committed for the Group Discussion /Interview will comprise
of a Chief General Manager, a General Manager and a Deputy
General Manager besides one SC/ST representative who should at
least be of SMGS IV incumbency.”
4. The private respondents appeared in the test held on 27.2.2011, the
result whereof was declared on 10.5.2011. Their names did not figure in
the result apparently because Institute of Banking Personnel Selection
(for short, ‘IBPS’), an independent expert body engaged in conducting
recruitment for various services, which was entrusted with the task of
preparing the examination papers and evaluating the answer sheets sent a
report to the Bank that some candidates including the private respondents
are suspected to have used unfair means. After four days, respondent No.3
issued letters dated 14.5.2011 and extended the probation of the private
respondents for three months by invoking Rule 16(2) of the Rules.
However, without waiting for expiry of the extended period of probation,
respondent No.3 terminated their services vide letters dated 27.6.2011 by
indicating that this was being done under Rule 16(3) of the Rules.
5. The private respondents challenged the termination of their
services by filing writ petitions mainly on the grounds that the action
taken by the concerned authorities of the Bank was arbitrary and
violative of the rules of natural justice. They pleaded that during the
period of probation, no one had informed them about any shortcoming,
deficiency or defect in their work and yet their services were
terminated without giving them notice and opportunity of hearing. The
private respondents further pleaded that even though they had requested
the concerned officers of the Bank to disclose the reasons for extension
of probation and termination of their services but no response was
received from them.
6. In the counter affidavits filed on behalf of the appellants, it was
pleaded that the decision to extend the probation of the private
respondents and to terminate their services was taken after considering
the report sent by IBPS about suspected use of unfair means by the
candidates. It was further pleaded that on checking the record of
seating arrangement, it was revealed that the private respondents and
other candidates were seating in close proximity with each other and that
was considered as a corroborative evidence of their having used unfair
means, namely, copying answers from one another. According to the
appellants, action was taken against the private respondents strictly in
accordance with the conditions of appointment without holding any formal
inquiry into the allegation involving misconduct.
7. The Division Bench of the High Court did not directly deal with the
question whether the action taken by the General Manager was arbitrary,
unfair and unjustified and whether in the garb of termination
simpliciter, the concerned authority had penalized the private
respondents on the charge of their having indulged in malpractices in the
confirmation test but held that the action taken by the appellants was
contrary to the guidelines framed by the IBPS for detecting cases of use
of unfair means. The Division Bench referred to paragraph 4 of the
guidelines framed by the IBPS and opined that after considering the
report suggesting that the private respondents were suspected to have
used unfair means in the examination, the Bank should have scrutinized
their cases on the basis of their performance in the descriptive papers
and then taken a final decision. The Division Bench took cognizance of
the statement of the senior counsel appearing for the Bank that
performance of the private respondents in the descriptive papers was not
evaluated and held that the Bank could not have discharged them from
service by assuming that they had used unfair means in the objective type
papers.
8. Shri U. U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellants argued that the impugned order is liable to be set aside
because the view taken by the High Court on the legality and propriety of
the decision taken by respondent No.3 in consonance with the terms of
appointment of the private respondents and Rule 16(3) of the Rules is ex
facie erroneous and is contrary to the terms and conditions of their
appointment. Shri Lalit emphasized that officers and employees of
unquestionable integrity are required by the Bank because their work
involves high degree of responsibility and any compromise in that regard
would be detrimental to larger public interest. Learned senior counsel
then argued that the assessment made by the appointing authority on the
issue of suitability of the private respondents for confirmation was
based on an objective consideration of the report received from IBPS and
in the absence of any express stigma in the order of
termination/discharge, the respondents were not entitled to complain of
violation of the rules of natural justice. Shri Lalit submitted that
holding of regular inquiry is not sine qua non for discharging a
probationer and the High Court committed grave error by nullifying the
decision taken by respondent No.3 on the ground of violation of the
guidelines/policy framed by IBPS for evaluation of the answer sheets.
Shri Lalit produced before the Court xerox copy of the proceedings which
culminated in the issue of letters dated 27.6.2011 to show that
respondent No.3 approved the note prepared by Deputy General Manager,
Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, who had examined the report
sent by IBPS and checked the record relating to seating arrangement which
conclusively established that the private respondents had used unfair
means in the confirmation test. Shri Lalit finally argued that discharge
of a probationer on the ground of unsuitability cannot be termed as
punitive and respondent No.3 was not required to give notice and
opportunity of hearing to the private respondents. In support of this
argument, Shri Lalit relied upon the judgments of this Court in Ajit
Singh v. State of Punjab (1983) 2 SCC 217, Krishnadevaraya Education
Trust v. L.A. Balakrishna (2001) 9 SCC 319, Pavanendra Narayan Verma v.
Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (2002) 1 SCC 520, Progressive
Education Society v. Rajendra (2008) 3 SCC 310 and Rajesh Kumar
Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand (2011) 4 SCC 447.
9. Shri Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel appearing for IBPS
submitted that the institute is an expert body which has been conducting
examinations for the officers and employees of various organizations and
financial institutions. Shri Singh submitted that IBPS has developed a
software of its own for identifying the cases of use of unfair means and
the software generates report of all pairs of cases which have identical
responses. The report of the software is then reviewed by a group of
experts and then and then only a conclusion is reached about suspected
use of unfair means. Learned senior counsel then argued that the
interpretation placed by the High Court on para 4(B) of the guidelines
framed by IBPS is wholly erroneous and the word ‘may’ used in that
paragraph cannot be construed as ‘shall’ so as to make evaluation of the
descriptive papers as mandatory even in the cases of suspected use of
unfair means. He submitted that IBPS had sent report regarding suspected
use of unfair means because the candidates had given 11 identical wrong
answers and 44 identical correct answers, which was highly improbable and
the appellant did not commit any error by relying upon that report.
Learned senior counsel referred to the revised guidelines issued by IBPS
for detecting the cases of use of unfair means and submitted that the
report sent to the Bank was based on evaluation of the papers of
objective test in consonance with the revised guidelines and the
concerned officers of the Bank took decision after fully satisfying
themselves that the private respondents had used unfair means in the
examination. Shri Vikas Singh emphasized that the action taken against
the private respondents had salutary and sobering effects on other
candidates and not a single case of unfair means was detected by IBPS in
the tests held between 17.7.2011 and 24.6.2012 for various batches of new
recruits.
10. Shri Pallav Shishodia, Mrs. Shobha Dixit, Senior Advocates and
other learned counsel appearing for the respondents argued that even
though the High Court did not specifically dealt with the question
whether the action taken by respondent No.3 was vitiated due to violation
of the rules of natural justice, the material produced before the High
Court and this Court unmistakably shows that the decision contained in
letters dated 27.6.2011 was founded on the conclusion reached by the
officers of the Bank that the private respondents were guilty of using
unfair means in the confirmation test and this could not have been done
without giving them action oriented notice and fair opportunity of
hearing. Shri Shishodia pointed out that the report prepared by IBPS was
based on computer scanning of the answer sheets of the objective papers
and the appellants could not have relied upon such report for
jeopardizing the career of the private respondents without holding an
inquiry and without giving them opportunity to controvert the allegation
of use of unfair means. Learned senior counsel submitted that there was
no deficiency or defect or shortcoming in the work or performance of the
private respondents as Probationary Officers and in the guise of
discharging their services under Rule 16(3), the Bank had penalized them
on the specific allegation of using unfair means in the confirmation test
without complying with the basics of the natural justice.
11. The question whether termination of the service of a temporary
employee or a probationer can be treated as punitive even though the
order passed by the competent authority does not contain any stigma has
been considered in a series of judgments. In Parshotam Lal Dhingra v.
Union of India, 1958 SCR 828, which can be considered as an important
milestone in the development of one facet of service jurisprudence in the
country, the Constitution Bench was called upon to decide whether the
order of reversion of an official holding a higher post in an officiating
capacity could be treated as punitive. After elaborate consideration of
the relevant provisions of the Constitution and judicial decisions on the
subject, the Constitution Bench observed:
“...In short, if the termination of service is founded on the right
flowing from contract or the service rules then, prima facie, the
termination is not a punishment and carries with it no evil
consequences and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the
Government has, by contract or under the rules, the right to terminate
the employment without going through the procedure prescribed for
inflicting the punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in
rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to punish the servant
and if the termination of service is sought to be founded on
misconduct, negligence, inefficiency or other disqualification, then
it is a punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must be
complied with....”
12. In State of Punjab and another v. Sukh Raj Bahadur (1968) 3 SCR
234, Mitter, J. considered several precedents and culled out the
following propositions:
“1. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be
terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination
without anything more would not attract the operation of Article 311
of the Constitution.
2. The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of
termination have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it
being immaterial.
3. If the order visits the public servant with any evil consequences
or casts an aspersion against his character or integrity, it must be
considered to be one by way of punishment, no matter whether he was a
mere probationer or a temporary servant.
4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded
by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain
whether the public servant should be retained in service does not
attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution.
5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged by Article
311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a charge-sheet submitted,
explanation called for and considered, any order of termination of
service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said
article.”
13. In State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (1970) 2 SCC 871, the
three Judge Bench considered the question whether the respondent’s
reversion from the post of Subedar-Major to that of Sergeant in the
backdrop of an inquiry made into the allegation of assault on his
subordinate was punitive. On behalf of the appellant, reliance was also
placed on the judgments in State of Punjab v. Sukh Raj Bahadur (supra)
and Union of India v. R. S. Dhaba, Income-tax Officer, Hoshiarpur, 1969
(3) SCC 603 and it was argued that the order of reversion cannot be
treated as punitive because it did not contain any word of stigma and the
High Court committed an error by relying upon the inquiry conducted by
the Commandant for coming to the conclusion that the order of reversion
was punitive. While rejecting the contention, this Court observed:
“We are unable to accede to the contention of the appellant that the
ratio of the above decision is that so long as there are no express
words of stigma attributed to the conduct of a Government Officer in
the impugned order it cannot be held to have been made by way of
punishment. The test as previously laid and which was relied on was
whether the misconduct or negligence was a mere motive for the order
of reversion or whether it was the very foundation of that order. In
Dhaba case, it was not found that the order of reversion was based on
misconduct or negligence of the officer. So far as we are aware no
such rigid principle has ever been laid down by this court that one
has only to look to the order and if it does not contain any
imputation of misconduct or words attaching a stigma to the character
or reputation of a Government Officer it must be held to have been
made in the ordinary course of administrative routine and the court is
debarred from looking at all the attendant circumstances to discover
whether the order had been made by way of punishment. The form of the
order is not conclusive of its true nature and it might merely be a
cloak or camouflage for an order founded on misconduct. It may be that
an order which is innocuous on the face and does not contain any
imputation of misconduct is a circumstance or a piece of evidence for
finding whether it was made by way of punishment or administrative
routine. But the entirety of circumstances preceding or attendant on
the impugned order must be examined and the overriding test will
always be whether the misconduct is a mere motive or is the very
foundation of the order.”
(emphasis supplied)
14. In Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (1975) 1 SCR 814, a seven-Judge
Bench considered the legality of the discharge of two judicial officers
of the Punjab Judicial Service, who were serving as probationers. A. N.
Ray, CJ, who wrote opinion for himself and five other Judges made the
following observations:
“No abstract proposition can be laid down that where the services of
a probationer are terminated without saying anything more in the order
of termination than that the services are terminated it can never
amount to a punishment in the facts and circumstances of the case. If
a probationer is discharged on the ground of misconduct, or
inefficiency or for similar reason without a proper enquiry and
without his getting a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against
his discharge it may in a given case amount to removal from service
within the meaning of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.
The form of the order is not decisive as to whether the order is by
way of punishment. Even an innocuously worded order terminating the
service may, in the facts and circumstances of the case establish that
an enquiry into allegations of serious and grave character of
misconduct involving stigma has been made in infraction of the
provision of Article 311. In such a case, the simplicity of the form
of the order will not give any sanctity. That is exactly what has
happened in the case of Ishwar Chand Agarwal. The order of termination
is illegal and must be set aside”.
Krishna Iyer, J, who agreed with the learned Chief Justice, made
the following concluding observations:
“Again, could it be that if you summarily pack off a probationer, the
order is judicially unscrutable and immune? If you conscientiously
seek to satisfy yourself about allegations by some sort of enquiry you
get caught in the coils of law, however harmlessly the order may be
phrased? And so, this sphinx-complex has had to give way in later
cases. In some cases the rule of guidance has been stated to be ‘the
substance of the matter’ and the ‘foundation’ of the order. When does
‘motive’ trespass into ‘foundation’? When do we lift the veil of
‘form’ to touch the ‘substance’? When the Court says so. These
‘Freudian’ frontiers obviously fail in the work-a-day world and Dr
Tripathi's observations in this context are not without force.”
15. In Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v. Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha
(1980) 2 SCC 593, Krishna Iyer, J. considered as to when the termination
simpliciter can be termed as punitive and observed:
“A termination effected because the master is satisfied of the
misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the
service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the
right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing
order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case, the grounds are recorded
in different proceedings from the formal order, does not detract from
its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the
master abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an
alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of
service, the conclusion is dismissal, even if full benefits as on
simple termination, are given and non-injurious terminology is used.
On the contrary, even if there is suspicion of misconduct, the master
may say that he does not wish to bother about it and may not go into
his guilt but may feel like not keeping a man he is not happy with. He
may not like to investigate nor take the risk of continuing a dubious
servant. Then it is not dismissal but termination simpliciter, if no
injurious record of reasons or punitive cut-back on his full terminal
benefits is found. For, in fact, misconduct is not then the moving
factor in the discharge.”
16. In Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India (1984) 2 SCC 369, this
Court considered the question whether termination of the appellant’s
service, who was appointed to Indian Police Service and was on probation,
by invoking Rule 12(b) of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules,
1954 was punitive in nature. The facts found by the Court were that
while undergoing training at National Police Academy, Hyderabad, the
Probationary Officers had delayed attending the ceremonial drill
practice. The Director of the Academy called explanation from all the
probationers. The appellant was accused of having instigated others not
to join ceremonial drill practice on time. He denied the allegation.
Thereafter, his service was terminated by a non-stigmatic order. The
appellant challenged the termination of his service on the ground of
violation of Articles 14 and 311(2) of the Constitution. The writ
petition filed by him was summarily dismissed by the Delhi High Court.
This Court referred to the averments contained in the pleadings of the
parties, the judgments in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India
(supra), Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab (supra) State of Punjab v.
Shri Sukh Raj Bahadur (supra), Union of India v. R.S. Dhaba (supra),
State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (supra), R.S. Sial v. State of
U.P. (1974) 3 SCR 754, State of U.P. v. Ram Chandra Trivedi (1976) 4 SCC
52 and I.N. Saksena v. State of M.P. (1967) 2 SCR 496 and held:
“It is, therefore, now well settled that where the form of the order
is merely a camouflage for an order of dismissal for misconduct it is
always open to the court before which the order is challenged to go
behind the form and ascertain the true character of the order. If the
court holds that the order though in the form is merely a
determination of employment is in reality a cloak for an order of
punishment, the court would not be debarred, merely because of the
form of the order, in giving effect to the rights conferred by law
upon the employee.
In the instant case, the period of probation had not yet been over.
The impugned order of discharge was passed in the middle of the
probationary period. An explanation was called for from the appellant
regarding the alleged act of indiscipline, namely, arriving late at
the gymnasium and acting as one of the ringleaders on the occasion and
his explanation was obtained. Similar explanations were called for
from other probationers and enquiries were made behind the back of the
appellant. Only the case of the appellant was dealt with severely in
the end. The cases of other probationers who were also considered to
be ringleaders were not seriously taken note of. Even though the
order of discharge may be non-committal, it cannot stand alone. Though
the noting in the file of the Government may be irrelevant, the cause
for the order cannot be ignored. The recommendation of the Director
which is the basis or foundation for the order should be read along
with the order for the purpose of determining its true character. If
on reading the two together the Court reaches the conclusion that the
alleged act of misconduct was the cause of the order and that but for
that incident it would not have been passed then it is inevitable that
the order of discharge should fall to the ground as the appellant has
not been afforded a reasonable opportunity to defend himself as
provided in Article 311(2) of the Constitution.”
(emphasis supplied)
17. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre
for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, the two Judge Bench considered the
appellant’s challenge to the termination of his service after adverting
to the various communications sent by the Head of the Organization to
the appellant and formulated the following points:
“(1) In what circumstances, the termination of a probationer's
services can be said to be founded on misconduct and in what
circumstances could it be said that the allegations were only the
motive?
(2) When can an order of termination of a probationer be said to
contain an express stigma?
(3) Can the stigma be gathered by referring back to proceedings
referred to in the order of termination?
(4) To what relief?”
While dealing with the first point, the Court referred to various
earlier judgments and observed:
“As to in what circumstances an order of termination of a probationer
can be said to be punitive or not depends upon whether certain
allegations which are the cause of the termination are the motive or
foundation. In this area, as pointed out by Shah, J. (as he then was)
in Madan Gopal v. State of Punjab there is no difference between cases
where services of a temporary employee are terminated and where a
probationer is discharged. This very question was gone into recently
in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corpn. Ltd. and
reference was made to the development of the law from time to time
starting from Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India to the concept
of “purpose of enquiry” introduced by Shah, J. (as he then was) in
State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and to the seven-Judge Bench
decision in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab and to post-Samsher Singh
case-law. This Court had occasion to make a detailed examination of
what is the “motive” and what is the “foundation” on which the
innocuous order is based.
If findings were arrived at in an enquiry as to misconduct, behind the
back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the
simple order of termination is to be treated as “founded” on the
allegations and will be bad. But if the enquiry was not held, no
findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct
an enquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the
employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case
of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if
the employer did not want to enquire into the truth of the allegations
because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was
doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the
allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple
order of termination would be valid.”
(emphasis supplied)
18. In Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. (2000) 5 SCC 152, the
Court considered the correctness of the order passed by the High Court
which had allowed the writ petition filed by the State and set aside the
order passed by U. P. Public Services Tribunal for reinstatement of the
appellant.
The competent authority had terminated the appellant’s service in terms
of Rule 3 of the U. P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of
Service) Rules, 1975. It was argued on behalf of the appellant that the
order by which his service was terminated, though innocuous, was, in
fact, punitive in nature because it was founded on the allegation that he
had fought with other colleagues and used filthy and unparliamentary
language. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents,
it was admitted that there was no adverse material against the appellant
except the incident in question. The original record produced before the
Tribunal revealed that the appellant’s service was terminated on account
of his alleged involvement in the quarrel between the constables. After
noticing various precedents, this Court observed:
“The whole case-law is thus based on the peculiar facts of each
individual case and it is wrong to say that decisions have been
swinging like a pendulum; right, the order is valid; left, the order
is punitive. It was urged before this Court, more than once including
in Ram Chandra Trivedi case that there was a conflict of decisions on
the question of an order being a simple termination order or a
punitive order, but every time the Court rejected the contention and
held that the apparent conflict was on account of different facts of
different cases requiring the principles already laid down by this
Court in various decisions to be applied to a different situation. But
the concept of “motive” and “foundation” was always kept in view.
The important principles which are deducible on the concept of
“motive” and “foundation”, concerning a probationer, are that a
probationer has no right to hold the post and his services can be
terminated at any time during or at the end of the period of probation
on account of general unsuitability for the post in question. If for
the determination of suitability of the probationer for the post in
question or for his further retention in service or for confirmation,
an inquiry is held and it is on the basis of that inquiry that a
decision is taken to terminate his service, the order will not be
punitive in nature. But, if there are allegations of misconduct and an
inquiry is held to find out the truth of that misconduct and an order
terminating the service is passed on the basis of that inquiry, the
order would be punitive in nature as the inquiry was held not for
assessing the general suitability of the employee for the post in
question, but to find out the truth of allegations of misconduct
against that employee. In this situation, the order would be founded
on misconduct and it will not be a mere matter of “motive”.
“Motive” is the moving power which impels action for a definite
result, or to put it differently, “motive” is that which incites or
stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating the services of
an employee is an act done by the employer. What is that factor which
impelled the employer to take this action? If it was the factor of
general unsuitability of the employee for the post held by him, the
action would be upheld in law. If, however, there were allegations of
serious misconduct against the employee and a preliminary inquiry is
held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a
termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to
other circumstances, would be founded on the allegations of misconduct
which were found to be true in the preliminary inquiry.
Applying these principles to the facts of the present case, it will be
noticed that the appellant, who was recruited as a Constable in the
34th Battalion, Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, U.P., had successfully
completed his training and had also completed two years of
probationary period without any blemish. Even after the completion of
the period of probation under para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations,
he continued in service in that capacity. The incident in question,
namely, the quarrel was between two other Constables in which the
appellant, to begin with, was not involved. When the quarrel was
joined by few more Constables on either side, then an inquiry was held
to find out the involvement of the Constables in that quarrel in which
filthy language was also used. It was through this inquiry that the
appellant's involvement was found established. The termination was
founded on the report of the preliminary inquiry as the employer had
not held the preliminary inquiry to find out whether the appellant was
suitable for further retention in service or for confirmation as he
had already completed the period of probation quite a few years ago
but was held to find out his involvement. In this situation,
particularly when it is admitted by the respondent that the
performance of the appellant throughout was unblemished, the order was
definitely punitive in character as it was founded on the allegations
of misconduct.”
(emphasis supplied)
19. In Union of India v. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (2010) 8 SCC 220, the
three-Judge Bench considered the question whether termination of the
respondent’s service who was serving as I.F.S. probationer by way of
discharge in accordance with the terms of employment was punitive. The
Court noted that the respondent’s service was terminated because he had
sought extension to join the Mission at Madrid in Spain because of sudden
deterioration in the health condition of his parents and also requested
for providing medical facilities and diplomatic passports to them. The
Court also noted that the Ministry of External Affairs had taken
cognizance of the complaint made by one Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha that
the respondent had been threatening her entire family and in particular
her daughter which was followed by some enquiries conducted into his
conduct or character by Joint Secretary, Foreign Service Institute and a
memorandum was issued to the respondent alleging his unauthorized
absence. The Joint Secretary found that the complaint was wholly
unfounded. The Court then referred to the principles laid down in
earlier judgments and approved the view taken by the High Court that even
though the order of discharge did not contain any stigma, the same was
not conclusive and the High Court had rightly termed the same as
punitive. Some of the observations made in the judgment are extracted
below:
“The materials on record reveal that the complaint made by Mrs
Narinder Kaur Chadha to the Minister of External Affairs had been
referred to the Joint Secretary and the Director (Vigilance) on 8-2-
2002 with a direction that the matter be looked into at the earliest.
Although, nothing adverse was found against the respondent, on 19-2-
2002, the Joint Secretary (Vigilance) held further discussions with
the Joint Secretary (Admn.) in this regard. What is, however, most
damning is that a decision was ultimately taken by the Director,
Vigilance Division, on 23-4-2002, to terminate the services of the
respondent, stating that the proposal had the approval of the Minister
of External Affairs. This case, in our view, is not covered by the
decision of this Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee case.”
20. The ratio of the above noted judgments is that a probationer has no
right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time
during or at the end of the period of probation on account of general
suitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds
an inquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his
further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is
the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action
of the competent authority cannot be castigated as punitive. However, if
the allegation of misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action
taken, the ultimate decision taken by the competent authority can be
nullified on the ground of violation of the rules of natural justice.
21. We shall now consider whether termination of the services of the
private respondents is vitiated due to violation of the rules of natural
justice. It will be useful to notice Rules 15 and 16 of the Rules which
regulate probation and confirmation of the officers of Bank, paragraphs
7(part) and 10 of the advertisement issued by the Bank for recruitment of
Probationary Officers, the extracts of note prepared by Deputy General
Manager, Central Recruitment and Promotion Department, which was approved
by respondent No.3, letters dated 12.5.2011 and 3.6.2011 of Assistant
General Manager (HR), which were duly initialed by the General Manager.
The same read as under:
RULES
“15 (1) A person appointed as a Probationary Officer or a Trainee
Officer shall be on probation for a period of two years.
15(2) Any other employee promoted as an officer to the Junior
Management Grade shall be on probation for a period of one
year.
15(3) Any other person appointed to any grade including the Junior
Management Grade shall be on probation for such period as
may be decided by the competent authority.
Provided that the competent authority may, in the case of any
officer, reduce or dispense with the period of probation
under this rule.
16(1) An officer referred to in rule 15 shall be confirmed in
the service of the Bank, if in the opinion of the competent
authority, the officer has satisfactorily completed the
training in any institution to which the officer may have
been deputed for training, and the in-service training in
the Bank.
Provided, that Bank may at its discretion subject to the merit and
suitability of a Probationary Officer/Trainee Officer for
future leadership role, being determined through a
screening process to be prescribed by the Central Human
Resources Committee may confirm and give placement
(fitment) to such officers in MMGS II.
Provided that an officer directly recruited in any grade may be
required also to pass a test in a language other than his
mother tongue or a professional course.
16(2) If, in the opinion of the competent authority, an officer has
not satisfactorily completed either or both the trainings
referred to in sub-rule (1) or if the officer has not
passed the test referred to therein or an officer’s service
is not satisfactory, the officer’s probation may be
extended by a further period not exceeding one year.
16(3) Where during the period of probation, including the period of
extension, if any, the competent authority is of the
opinion that the officer is not fit for confirmation:-
a) in the case of a direct appointee, his services may
be terminated by one month’s notice or payment of one
month’s emoluments in lieu thereof, and
b) in the case of a promotee from the Bank’s service, he
may be reverted to the grade or cadre from which he
was promoted.”
ADVERTISEMENT
“7. xx xx xx
CAREER PATH
The Bank may at its discretion, subject to merit and suitability after
probation period of a probationary officer for future leadership role,
to be determined through a screening process, confirm and give
placement (Fitment) to selected officers in next higher grade i.e.
Officers Middle Management Grade Scale II.
The Probationary Officers will be on probation of two years during
which they will be given intensive training and towards end of their
probation/training period they will be subjected to a screening
process. While those probationary officers who achieve the pre-
determined standards may be confirmed and given placement in the next
higher grade i.e. Officer Middle Management Grade Scale II . Others
who qualify the test by fail to achieve the standards set for
placement in Middle Management Grade Scale II, will be confirmed as
Officer Junior Management Grade I. The services of those Probationary
officers who fail to qualify this process may be terminated.
10. ACTION AGAINST CANDIDATES FOUND GUILTY OF MISCONDUCT:
Candidates are warned that they should not furnish any particulars
that are false, tampered/fabricated or should not suppress any
material information while filing up the application form.
At the time of written examination/interview, if a candidate is (or
has been) found guilty of:
(i) Using unfair means during the examination or (ii) impersonating by
any person or (iii) misbehaving in the examination hall or taking away
the question booklet (or any part thereof)/ answer sheet from the
examination hall or (iv) resorting to any irregular or improper means
in connection with his/her candidature for selection or (v) obtaining
support for his/her candidature by any unfair means, such a candidate
may, in addition to rendering himself/herself liable to criminal
prosecution, be liable;
a) To be disqualified from the examination for which he/she is a
candidate.
b) To be debarred either permanently or for a specified period, from
any examination or recruitment conducted by SBI.
c) For termination of service, if he/she has already joined the Bank.”
NOTE PREPARED BY THE DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
STAFF SUPERVISING:
PROBATIONARY OFFICERS 2009-10 BATCH
WRITTEN EXAMINATION FOR CONFIRMATION
HELD ON 27-02-2011.
Placed alongside are: -
• ECCB Memorandum dated the 04th December 2003 vide which policy
for confirmation of PO/TO as JMGS-I / MMGS-II was formed and was
made effective for the batches of the PO/TO who were due for
confirmation as from a date after the date of the approval of
the policy i.e. 04th December 2003(Flag "A").
• Letter No. P&HRD: CM: 5:SPL: 815 dated the 29th September 2004 &
P&HRD/CM/5/3982 dated the 28th October 2005 regarding pattern
for the screening process for considering PO/TO for confirmation
as JMGS-I / MMGS-II and also for extension of probation period
by 06 months for those who will fail to secure minimum
qualifying marks in the written test of functional knowledge
(Flag "B").
• Cadre Management Department Memo No. HR/CM/8/691 dated 17-01-
2008 regarding modification in screening process for
confirmation of POs in JMGS-I / MMGS-II consequent upon revision
in recruitment procedure / criteria approved by the ECCB in its
meeting held on 28th December 2007(Flag "C").
• Cadre Management Department Memo No. HR/CM/6/SPL/517 dated 20-09-
2010 forwarding therewith copy of note no. HR/CM/6/111/2010-11
dated the 09th September 2010 with supplementary note dated the
13th September 2010 put up before CHRC in its meeting held on
13th September 2010 advising modification to be effected in the
policy for confirmation of Probationary Officers (POs) and
Trainee Officers (TOs) (Flag "D").
• A copy of our approved note No. CRPD/SNP/PO-09-10/269 dated 08-
12-2010(Flag "E") finalizing date of confirmation of written
test for probationary officers 2009-10 batch.
3. Accordingly, written test was conducted for confirmation of
probationary officers 2009-10 batch on 27-02-2011, wherein 2185
candidates appeared in the test against 2204 candidates called for the
examination.
4. As per the approved testing pattern, the minimum qualifying
marks in the written test for confirmation in JMGS I is 50% i.e. 100
out of 200 (for SC/ST/PWD 45% i.e. 90 out of 200) and 75% (150 out of
200) for qualifying them for Group Discussion / Interview for their
confirmation in MMGS II direct.
5. The policy for confirmation of PO/TO has been modified after
announcing the date of the written test but before processing the
result thereof. The process of declaring the results as also advising
the candidates the effects of their securing less than the minimum
passing marks at 50% (45% for SC/ST/PWD candidates) in the written
test held on 27-02-2011 have been modified as detailed in the Annexure-
II.
6. The evaluation of all the answer papers (Objective type and
Descriptive type) in respect of 2185 candidates has since been
completed. We are in receipt of the merit list drawn on the basis of
aggregate marks secured in Objective & Descriptive Papers from IBPS.
The descriptive papers of all candidates who secured marks between 48%
and 50% GEN/OBC (43% and 45% in respect of SC/ST/PWD candidates) as
also those securing marks between 74% and 75% in the aggregate were
subjected to 100% moderation.
7. We have also received report on "Use of Unfair Means" i.e.
copying based on analysis done by IBPS, Mumbai. A brief write up in
"Detection of use of unfair means in objective tests by the
candidates" is enclosed as Annexure-III. They have found 11 such
pairs involving 20 candidates (Annexure-IV) as per undernoted table
|Copying Cases in Written Test held on 27-02-2011 for |
|Confirmation of Probationary Officers 2009-10 Batch |
|SR. |CENTRE |NO. OF|NO. OF |CATEGORY |
|NO. | |PAIRS |CANDIDATES| |
|01 |Ahmedabad |02 |04 |Use of Unfair Means is |
| | | | |suspected. |
|02 |Guwahati |01 |02 |Use of Unfair Means is |
| | | | |suspected. |
|03 |Patna |07 |12 |Use of Unfair Means is |
| | | | |suspected. |
|04 |Lucknow |01 |02 |Use of Unfair Means is |
| | | | |suspected. |
| |TOTAL |11 |20 | |
We have analysed the report given by IBPS, which is based on correct
answers, identical wrong answers (IWW) and other mismatches given by
pairs, which have indulged in copying. IBPS has made analysis after
excluding right answers and most popular wrong answers. Thus the
chances of having large identical wrong answers are practically not
possible.
Subsequently, we have called the seating arrangement of the candidates
involved in copying (Annexure-V). In the seating arrangement, one pair
of candidates from Patna Circle are seated in different rooms and have
Identical Wrong Answers, which are at the lower end of suspected
category. In this case the data evaluated by the IBPS they also
observed 4 mismatches in the answers (in non identical wrong answers).
Considering all relevant factors, we propose to give benefit of doubt
to candidates forming this pair and exclude them from candidates who
used unfair means. Other than this pair, each of the pairs of
candidates are seated next to each other, in addition to their being
in the same room. This further strengthens the view that these
candidates used unfair means namely copying answers from one another.
8. Excluding the pair mentioned above, the statistical and
corroborative evidences are against the remaining 18 candidates, we
propose to
i) Cancel their candidature for the confirmation test.
ii) Extend their probation for a period of 3 months.
iii) All these officers in terms of their appointment are on
probation for 2 years from their date of joining and provisions
of SBIOSR 1992 are applicable to them. Provisions of Rule 16
(1, 2 and 3) (Annexure-VI) of SBIOSR enable the Appointing
Authority to terminate the services of involved officers during
the probation
period in such cases without going through
disciplinary proceedings. Legal opinion obtained in
this regard in similar cases in an earlier examination is
enclosed (Annexure-VII).
iv) Circles will be asked to initiate investigations against the
invigilators manning the rooms where such candidates were seated
followed by disciplinary proceedings as per Service Conditions
applicable for such cases.
9. On perusal / analysis of the Annexure-I, we submit the
summary as under:-
i) xx xx xx
ii) xx xx xx
iii) 59 candidates (60-1 candidate involved in copying) have failed
to secure 50% i.e. 100 out of 200 (for SC/ST/PWD 45% i.e. 90 out
of 200) as such these 59 candidates are not suitable for their
confirmation.
10. Accordingly, we recommend:
i) xx xx xx
ii) xx xx xx
iii) Probation period of 59 candidates (60-1 candidate involved in
copying), who have failed to secure 50% i.e. 100 out of 200 (for
SC/ST/PWD 45% i.e. 90 out of 200), be extended by 6 months. They
will be subjected to confirmation re-test within the extended
period of probation in terms of the extant policy (Annexure-I).
iv) 19 candidates (Annexure-I) were absent in the
confirmation written test, are not suitable for their
confirmation as JMGS-I. Circles have advised the reasons for
their absence in the test. Subject to verification by the
Circles, the probation period of eligible candidates is to
be extended by a further period of 6 months and they will be
subjected to confirmation re-test within the extended period of
probation.
v) There are 18 candidates against whom statistical and
corroborative evidences (IBPS report, seating plan) are
available showing their involvement in use of unfair means i.e.
copying in the written test. We propose to cancel their
candidature for the confirmation test and Circles will be asked
to initiate action as suggested in Para "8".
(emphasis supplied)
LETTER DATED 12.5.2011.
“GENERAL MANAGER NW-I.
CIRCLE DEVELOPMENT OFFICER
STAFF: SUPERVISING PROBATIONARY OFFICERS -2009-10 BATCH RESULT OF
WRITTEN EXAMINATION HELD ON 27.02.2011
A written examination for determining the suitability of the
Probationary Officers 2009-10 batch for confirmation as officer JMGS-
I/ direct placement as officer MMGS-II was conducted on 27.02.2011 in
which out of 140 eligible POs, 139 appeared in the above test from our
Circle. One PO had tendered resignation from Bank's services just
before the above test.
2. In this connection, we have been advised by Corporate Center, vide
their letter No. CRPD/SNP/PO2009 10/CONF/74-A dated 10.05.2011 (placed
alongside) that out of 139 POs from our Circle, 39 POs, as per
Annexure "A", have secured qualifying marks of 150 or more out of 200
(i.e. 75% or more) to become eligible for Group Discussion/ Interview
for considering their confirmation as officer MMGS-II in terms of Rule
16 (1) of State Bank of India officers service rules. In case any of
these 39 candidates do not secure qualifying marks i.e. 75% or more in
GD/Interview, he/she will be considered suitable for confirmation in
JMGS-I w.e.f. 15.05.2011 or upon completion of two years probation
from the date of their joining the Bank.
3. 96 candidates, as per Annexure "B", have secured minimum
qualifying marks of 50% or more but less than 75% (45% or more for
SC/ST/PWD) and have thus become eligible for being considered suitable
for confirmation as officer JMGS-I w.e.f. 15.05.2011 or upon
completion of two years probation from the date of their joining the
Bank in terms of Rule 16(1) of State Bank of India Officers Service
Rules.
4. 2 candidates, as per Annexure “C", who scored less than 50%
(less than 45% for SC/ST/PWD) marks,
are not eligible for confirmation at this stage and their probation
will be extended for a period of 6 months.
They will have to appear for confirmation re-test, which will be
scheduled during the extended period of
probation. In the event of any candidate failing in the re-test,
his/her services will be terminated in terms of
offer of appointment letter.
5. In terms of the Corporate Centre letter under reference, mentors
(SMGS-IV/V) have to be identified for the
2 candidates (Annexure "C"), who could not qualify the confirmation
test, for proper guidance and counselling
to upgrade their knowledge / skills in the Bank. In order to enable
them to imbibe more learning during their
extended probation period, we also propose to change their branches.
The mentors and branches identified
for them are as under:
|Sl. |Name |Present |Proposed |Mentors |
| | |Branch |Branch/Off-ice|identified |
|1. |Ms. Smriti |Indira |RASMECCC, |Mrs. Shubha |
| |Anand |Nagar, |Bareilly |Doorwar, AGM |
| | |Bareilly | |(Trg.), SBLC, |
| | | | |Bareilly |
|2. |Shri |Kamachha, |RASMECCC, |Shri |
| |Abhishek |Varanasi |Varanasi |S.K.Srivastava,|
| |Debnath | | |CM (Trg.), |
| | | | |SBLC, Varanasi |
6. Further, 2 candidates, as per Annexure "D", have been found
suspected to have indulged in copying and as such their probation will
be extended by 3 months in terms of Corporate Centre letter No.
CRPD/SNP/PO2009-10/CONF/75 dated 10.05.2011.
7. Accordingly, in respect of 2 candidates of the above batch of
Probationary Officers (2009-10 batch), who could not qualify in the
confirmation test conducted on 27-02-2011, and 2 candidates who have
been found suspected to have indulged in copying will have to be
served letters on the lines of draft letters (Annexure-E & F) and
their acknowledgement will have to be obtained. We, therefore, propose
to deliver letters (placed below for your signature) to these 4
candidates. Further, we also propose to confirm 96 candidates
(Annexure "B" ) as officer JMGS-I w.e.f. 15.05.2011 or upon completion
of two years probation from the date of their joining the Bank in
terms of Rule 16(1) of State Bank of India Officers Service Rules.
Submitted for approval, please.
ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER (HR)”
Annexure-“D”
“Central Recruitment Promotion Department, Corporate Centre, Mumbai
Confirmation of Probationary Officers (2009-10) Batch Written
Examination Held On Sunday, 27-02-2011 COPYING CASES
|CSRNO |CIR |ROLLNO |TITLE |NAME |DOB |PFINDEX |
|1 |LUC |2263701061 |MS |PALAK |19-06-|5910633 |
| | | | |MODI |85 | |
|2 |LUC |2263701067 |SHRI |PRABHAT |22-11-|5908930 |
| | | | |DIXIT |83 | |
LETTER DATD 3.6.2011.
“General Manager NW-I (Appointing Authority)
Circle Development Officer
Staff : Supervising
Probationary officers : 2009 Batch
Result of Confirmation Test Held on 27.02.2011
Copying Case : Extension of Probation Period by Three Months
139 Probationary Officers of 2009 batch appeared in the screening test
for confirmation in JMGS-I and MMGS-II on 27.02.2011 from our Circle.
Corporate Centre vide their e-mail letter no. CRPD/SNP/PO-2009-
10/CONF/75 dated 10.05.2011 (Flag-‘A’) has forwarded a list of 02
candidates viz Ms. Palak Modi, PF index no. 5910633 and Shri Prabhat
Dixit, PF index no. 5908930 where the use of unfair means (copying) is
suspected as per report furnished by IBPS which is further supported
by the corroborative evidence of sitting next to one-another J in
different rows in the same room, as indicated by the sitting plan in
the above mentioned test.
2. Corporate Centre also advised that as approved by the
Appropriate Authority, the probation period of these candidates is to
be extended by 03 months in terms of Rule 16(2) of SBIOSR and
appropriate process to be completed within extended probation period.
Further, as the statistical and additional corroborative evidences are
against these candidates, as an examination conducting body, Corporate
Centre has cancelled their candidature for the confirmation test.
3. A note was placed to the appointing authority i.e. General
Manager (NW-I) and upon his approval (Flag-‘B’) the probation period
of these 02 candidates has been extended by 03 months. We propose to
initiate appropriate action against the above mentioned 02
Probationary Officers in the matter at the earliest within the
extended probation period.
4. Corporate Centre has advised that keeping in view the
unsatisfactory conduct of these 02 officers during the written
examination held on 27.02.2011, these candidates cannot be deemed to
be fit for confirmation and are, therefore, liable for action in terms
of Rule 16(3) of SBIOSR by the Appropriate Authority. In this
connection, we have also discussed the matter with AGM (Law) at
Corporate Centre.
5. We, therefore, propose subject to your approval, to initiate
necessary action against these 02 Probationary Officers for
termination of their services at the earliest. Upon approval we will
draft a letter for termination of their services and forward the same
to Corporate Centre for vetting. Upon receipt of advices from
Corporate Centre, we will put up the termination letter, to be served
to these 02 POs, for your signature. The appropriate authority in the
matter is Appointing Authority, i.e., senior most General Manager of
the Circle.
Submitted for approval.
Asstt. General Manager (HR)”
22. A combined reading of Rules 15(1) and 16 and paragraph 5 of the
conditions of appointment makes it clear that a person appointed as a
Probationary Officer remains on probation for a minimum period of two
years at the end of which he is entitled to be confirmed if the competent
authority is of the opinion that he has satisfactorily completed the
training in any institution to which he may have been deputed and the in-
service training in the Bank. The Probationary Officer can also be
subjected to screening for judging his merit and suitability.
If the
Probationary Officer fails to satisfactorily complete the training(s) or
fails to pass the screening test or his service is not satisfactory, then
the Bank can extend the period of probation by a further period of which
the outer limit is one year.
In a given case, the competent authority
can, if it is of the opinion that the Probationary Officer is not fit for
confirmation, terminate his service by one month’s notice or payment of
one month’s emoluments.
23. It is thus evident that satisfactory performance during the period
of probation, successful completion of training(s) and passing of the
test conducted by the Bank for judging his suitability for the post
constitute the touchstone for his confirmation.
24. The policy of confirmation, which was circulated vide letter dated
20.9.2010 envisaged placement of the Probationary Officers scoring 75% or
more marks in the written test, group discussion and interview in MMGS-
II. Those scoring less than 75% but minimum 50% (general category) and
45% (SC/ST/PWD) could be confirmed in JMGS-I. Those scoring less than
50% or 45%, as the case may be, are eligible to again appear in the
confirmation test and qualify the same before completion of two years’
probation. If he fails to qualify the test second time, his service is
liable to be terminated in terms of Rule 16(3) of the Rules. An
alternative available to the Bank is to extend the period of probation of
the candidate for maximum one year with two opportunities to appear in
the confirmation tests at six-monthly interval.
25. The primary object of the confirmation test held on 27.2.2011,
which could also be termed as evaluation test within the meaning of
paragraph 5(c) of the appointment letter was to decide whether the
officer has made use of the opportunities made available to him by the
Bank to prove his worth for the job for which he was recruited and
whether he has acquired sufficient knowledge about the functional
requirements of the Bank. The test also gave an opportunity to the
Probationary Officer to demonstrate that he was meritorious enough to be
placed in the higher grade.
26. There is a marked distinction between the concepts of
satisfactory completion of probation and successful passing of the
training/test held during or at the end of the period of probation, which
are sine qua non for confirmation of a probationer and the Bank’s right
to punish a probationer for any defined misconduct, misbehaviour or
misdemeanor. In a given case, the competent authority may, while
deciding the issue of suitability of probationer to be confirmed, ignore
the act(s) of misconduct and terminate his service without casting any
aspersion or stigma which may adversely affect his future prospects but,
if the misconduct/misdemeanor constitutes the basis of the final decision
taken by the competent authority to dispense with the service of the
probationer albeit by a non stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil
and declare that in the garb of termination simpliciter, the employer has
punished the employee for an act of misconduct.
27. The use of unfair means in the evaluation test/confirmation test
held by the Bank certainly constitutes a misconduct. The Bank itself had
treated such an act to be a misconduct (paragraph 10 of advertisement
dated 1.7.2008). It is not in dispute that the services of the private
respondents were not terminated on the ground that there was any
deficiency or shortcoming in their work or performance during probation
or that they had failed to satisfactorily complete the training or had
failed to secure the qualifying marks in the test held on 27.2.2011. As
a matter of fact, the note prepared by the Deputy General Manager, which
was approved by the General Manager makes it crystal clear that the
decision to dispense with the services of the private respondents was
taken solely on the ground that they were guilty of using unfair means in
the test held on 27.2.2011. To put it differently, the foundation of the
action taken by the General Manager was the accusation that while
appearing in the objective test, the private respondents had resorted to
copying. IBPS had relied upon the analysis made by the computer and sent
report to the Bank that 18 candidates were suspected to have used unfair
means. The concerned authority then sent for the chart of seating
arrangement and treated the same as a piece of evidence for coming to the
conclusion that the private respondents had indeed used unfair means in
the examination. This exercise was not preceded by an inquiry involving
the private respondents and no opportunity was given to them to defend
themselves against the charge of use of unfair means. In other words,
they were condemned unheard which, in our considered view, was legally
impermissible.
28. Before concluding, we may notice the judgments relied upon by the
learned senior counsel for the appellants. In Ajit Singh v. State of
Punjab (supra), this Court considered the question whether the decision
of the State Government to terminate the services of the appellants, who
were appointed as Executive Officers on probation of one year, could be
nullified on the ground of violation of Articles 14 ad 16 of the
Constitution. The facts of the case show that the Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922 was enacted to make provision for the improvement
and expansion of towns in Punjab. The Act envisages the creation and
constitution of Trusts and the Trust so created will have a corporate
personality with perpetual succession and a common seal. The duties and
functions of the Trust inter alia include preparing of schemes under the
Act for various purposes. Section 17 conferred power on the State
Government to constitute certain services in the manner therein
prescribed. One such service contemplated by the section was Punjab
Service of Trust Executive Officers. Sub-section (2) of Section 17
conferred power on the State Government to make rules for regulating the
recruitment and the conditions of service of members of the Trust
services constituted by the State Government. Armed with this power, the
State Government constituted Punjab Service of Trust Executive Officers.
In exercise of the power conferred by Section 73 read with Section 17(2)
of the Act, the State Government framed rules styled as Punjab Trust
Services (Recruitment and Conditions of Service) Rules, 1978 (“1978
Rules” for short). Rule 5(2)(i) inter alia provided that 50 per cent of
the vacancies in the cadre of Executive Officers shall be filled by
direct recruitment and for this purpose Rule 5(4) envisaged the setting
up of a Selection Committee called Punjab Trust Services Selection
Committee. In 1978, Directorate of Local Government, Punjab issued
Advertisement No. 1078 inviting applications for the posts in Class I, II
and III of Trust Executive Officers. Pursuant to this advertisement,
large number of persons applied for various posts. The Punjab Trust
Services Selection Committee interviewed various candidates and
ultimately recommended 11 persons for the post of Trust Executive
Officers. Ajit Singh and Rajinder Singh were recommended for Class I
post; S. Sarup Singh and R.L. Bhagat were recommended for Class II post
of Trust Executive Officers and the remaining seven petitioners in this
group of petitions were recommended for Class III post of Trust Executive
Officers. These recommendations were accepted and appointment orders were
issued by Punjab Government on May 28, 1979. After each appointee
completed one year of service, an increment was released in his favour.
After one year, the State Government terminated their services vide
orders dated 25.9.1980. One of the several grounds on which the
appellants challenged the termination of their services was that the
action of the employer was wholly arbitrary, discriminatory and violative
of equality clause contained in the Constitution. While quashing orders
dated 25.9.1980, this Court observed:
“When the master-servant relation was governed by the archaic law of
hire and fire, the concept of probation in service jurisprudence was
practically absent. With the advent of security in public service when
termination or removal became more and more difficult and order of
termination or removal from service became a subject-matter of
judicial review, the concept of probation came to acquire a certain
connotation. If a servant could not be removed by way of punishment
from service unless he is given an opportunity to meet the allegations
if any against him which necessitates his removal from service, rules
of natural justice postulate an enquiry into the allegations and proof
thereof. This developing master-servant relationship put the master on
guard. In order that an incompetent or inefficient servant is not
foisted upon him because the charge of incompetence or inefficiency is
easy to make but difficult to prove, concept of probation was devised.
To guard against errors of human judgment in selecting suitable
personnel for service, the new recruit was put on test for a period
before he is absorbed in service or gets a right to the post. Period
of probation gave a sort of locus pententiae to the employer to
observe the work, ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the
servant and if he is found not suitable for the post, the master
reserved a right to dispense with his service without anything more
during or at the end of the prescribed period which is styled as
period of probation. Viewed from this aspect, the courts held that
termination of service of a probationer during or at the end of a
period of probation will not ordinarily and by itself be a punishment
because the servant so appointed has no right to continue to hold such
a post any more than a servant employed on probation by a private
employer is entitled to (see Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India).
The period of probation therefore furnishes a valuable opportunity to
the master to closely observe the work of the probationer and by the
time the period of probation expires to make up his mind whether to
retain the servant by absorbing him in regular service or dispense
with his service. Period of probation may vary from post to post or
master to master. And it is not obligatory on the master to prescribe
a period of probation. It is always open to the employer to employ a
person without putting him on probation. Power to put the employee on
probation for watching his performance and the period during which the
performance is to be observed is the prerogative of the employer.”
The Court then took cognizance of the fact that on completion of one
year’s probation an increment was released in favour of the appellants
and proceeded to observe:
“It is implicit in release of increment that the petitioners had
satisfactorily discharged their duty during the probation period, and
at any rate the work and conduct was not shown to be unsatisfactory,
which permitted an increment to be earned. Assuming, as contended for
on behalf of the respondents that period of probation was two years,
the fact that on the expiry of one year of service an increment was
released, would imply that during the period of one year the work and
conduct has not been unsatisfactory. If it was otherwise the release
of increment could have been interdicted on the ground that neither
the work nor the conduct was satisfactory. The fact that the increment
was released would at least permit an inference that there was
satisfactory completion of the probation period and that during the
probationary period, the work and conduct of each of the petitioners
was satisfactory. If up to the end of June, 1980 the work and conduct
of each of the petitioners was satisfactory and if the service of each
of them was, simultaneously on the same day September 25, 1980
dispensed with on the ground mentioned in Rule 9(2)(a) in that in the
opinion of the appointing authority, the work and conduct of each of
the petitioners was not satisfactory, then between June 1980 and
September 1980 something was simultaneously done by each of the
petitioners to permit the appointing authority - the State - to reach
an affirmative conclusion that the work and conduct, became wholly
unsatisfactory and the degree of dissatisfaction with the service was
so high that the service of all the 11 petitioners recruited on the
same day was required to be dispensed with on identical ground. This
is too fortuitous to carry conviction.”
29. In Krishnadevaraya Education Trust v. L.A. Balakrishna (supra), the
Court noted that the services of the respondent, who was appointed as
Assistant Professor on probation were terminated on the ground of
unsuitability and observed:
“There can be no manner of doubt that the employer is entitled to
engage the services of a person on probation. During the period of
probation, the suitability of the recruit/appointee has to be seen. If
his services are not satisfactory which means that he is not suitable
for the job, then the employer has a right to terminate the services
as a reason thereof. If the termination during probationary period is
without any reason, perhaps such an order would be sought to be
challenged on the ground of being arbitrary. Therefore, naturally
services of an employee on probation would be terminated, when he is
found not to be suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without
assigning any reason. If the order on the face of it states that his
services are being terminated because his performance is not
satisfactory, the employer runs the risk of the allegation being made
that the order itself casts a stigma. We do not say that such a
contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is preferred that the
order itself does not mention the reason why the services are being
terminated.
If such an order is challenged, the employer will have to indicate the
grounds on which the services of a probationer were terminated. Mere
fact that in response to the challenge the employer states that the
services were not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the
services of the probationer were being terminated by way of
punishment. The probationer is on test and if the services are found
not to be satisfactory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of
appointment, the right to terminate the services.
In the instant case, the second order which was passed terminating the
services of the respondent was innocuously worded. Even if we take
into consideration the first order which was passed which mentioned
that a Committee which had been constituted came to the conclusion
that the job proficiency of the respondent was not up to the mark,
that would be a valid reason for terminating the services of the
respondent. That reason cannot be cited and relied upon by contending
that the termination was by way of punishment.”
30. In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical
Sciences (supra), this Court again considered the question whether
termination of the service of probationer can be termed as punitive
merely because it is preceded by an inquiry for the purpose of judging
his suitability and answered the same in negative. The two-Judge Bench
referred to a large number of precedents and observed:
“29. … Generally speaking when a probationer's appointment is
terminated it means that the probationer is unfit for the job, whether
by reason of misconduct or ineptitude, whatever the language used in
the termination order may be. Although strictly speaking, the stigma
is implicit in the termination, a simple termination is not stigmatic.
A termination order which explicitly states what is implicit in every
order of termination of a probationer's appointment, is also not
stigmatic. The decisions cited by the parties and noted by us earlier,
also do not hold so. In order to amount to a stigma, the order must be
in a language which imputes something over and above mere
unsuitability for the job.”
31. In Progressive Education Society v. Rajendra (supra), this Court
examined correctness of the order passed by the School Tribunal
constituted under Section 9 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private
Schools (Conditions of Service) Regulation Act, 1977, which was approved
by the High Court, quashing the termination of the service of respondent
No.1 on the ground of unsatisfactory performance during the period of
probation. This Court referred to the relevant provisions of the
Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Rules,
1981 and observed:
“The law with regard to termination of the services of a probationer
is well established and it has been repeatedly held that such a power
lies with the appointing authority which is at liberty to terminate
the services of a probationer if it finds the performance of the
probationer to be unsatisfactory during the period of probation. The
assessment has to be made by the appointing authority itself and the
satisfaction is that of the appointing authority as well. Unless a
stigma is attached to the termination or the probationer is called
upon to show cause for any shortcoming which may subsequently be the
cause for termination of the probationer's service, the management or
the appointing authority is not required to give any explanation or
reason for terminating the services except informing him that his
services have been found to be unsatisfactory.
The facts of this case are a little different from the normal cases
relating to probation and the termination of the services of a
probationer in that the satisfaction required to be arrived at under
sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act has to be read along with
Rule 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 with particular reference to sub-rule
(6) which provides that the performance of an employee appointed on
probation is to be objectively assessed by the Head during the period
of his probation and a record of such assessment is to be maintained.
If the two provisions are read together, it would mean that before
taking recourse to the powers vested under sub-section (3) of Section
5 of the MEPS Act, the performance of an employee appointed on
probation would have to be taken into consideration by the school
management before terminating his services.
Accordingly, while Rules 14 and 15 of the MEPS Rules, 1981 cannot
override the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS
Act, it has to be said that the requirements of sub-rule (6) of Rule
15 would be a factor which the school management has to take into
consideration while exercising the powers which it undoubtedly has and
is recognised under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the Act.
This brings us to the next question regarding the sufficiency of the
materials before the school management while purporting to pass the
order of termination on 1-8-1994. As has been discussed, both by the
School Tribunal and the High Court, the confidential report which has
been produced on behalf of the school management does not inspire
confidence on account of the different dates which appear both in Part
I and Part II of the said report. Part I of the self-assessment form
gives the particulars of the teacher concerned and the remarks of the
reporting authority, namely, the Head Mistress of the school. The date
in the said part is shown as 4-7-1994, whereas the date at the end of
Part II, which is the form of the confidential report giving details
of the teacher's performance is dated 24-6-1994, which appears to be
in line with the date given of the forwarding letter written by the
Head Mistress to the Secretary of the Society. To add to the confusion
created by the different dates on the form, there is a third date
which appears on Part I of the self-assessment form which shows that
the documents were presumably forwarded to the management of the
school on 6-8-1994, which is a date which is prior to the date of
termination of the services of Respondent 1, namely, 1-8-1994.
This merely goes to show that the said documents are not above
suspicion and that the requirements of Rule 15(6) and Rule 14 had not
been complied with prior to invocation by the school management of the
powers under sub-section (3) of Section 5 of the MEPS Act.”
32. In Rajesh Kumar Srivastava v. State of Jharkhand (supra), the two-
Judge Bench examined challenge to the termination of the appellant’s
service, who was a Probationer Munsif. After examining the record placed
before it, the Bench held that the competent authority had terminated the
service of the appellant because his work was not satisfactory and such
decision cannot be termed as stigmatic or punitive.
33. The proposition laid down in none of the five judgments relied upon
by the learned counsel for the appellants is of any assistance to their
cause, which were decided on their own facts. We may also add that the
abstract proposition laid down in paragraph 29 of the judgment in
Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences (supra)
is not only contrary to the Constitution Bench judgment in Samsher Singh
v. State of Punjab (supra), but large number of other judgments – State
of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (supra), Gujarat Steel Tubes Ltd. v.
Gujarat Steel Tubes Mazdoor Sabha (supra) and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government
of India (supra) to which reference has been made by us and to which
attention of the two-Judge Bench does not appear to have been drawn.
Therefore, the said proposition must be read as confined to the facts of
that case and cannot be relied upon for taking the view that a simple
order of termination of service can never be declared as punitive even
though it may be founded on serious allegation of misconduct or
misdemeanor on the part of the employee.
34. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.
The appellants shall
reinstate the private respondents within 15 days of the production of
copy of this judgment before respondent No.3 and give them all
consequential benefits like pay, allowances, etc. within next one month.
However, it is made clear that
this judgment shall not preclude the
competent authority from taking fresh decision in the matter of
confirmation of the private respondents after giving them effective
opportunity of hearing against the allegation of use of unfair means in
the test held on 27.2.2011.
…..……….....……..….………………….…J.
[G.S. SINGHVI]
…………..………..….………………….…J.
[SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA]
New Delhi,
December 03, 2012.
-----------------------
47
