Tuesday, November 20, 2018
Follow us on
Haryana

Delay in termination not ground to stay in job: HC

November 06, 2018 07:04 AM

COURTESY TOI NOV 6

Delay in termination not ground to stay in job: HC
Ajay.Sura@timesgroup.com

Chandigarh:

The Punjab and Haryana high court has clarified that any delay in termination orders does not entitle an employee on probation to a permanent job if their conduct during the probation period was unsatisfactory.


Justice Ritu Bahri of the high court passed these orders while upholding dismissal of a deputy secretary of the Haryana Vidhan Sabha secretariat. “If the work and conduct of an employee has been found to be unsatisfactory, the said employee is not entitled to complete the probation successfully and mere delay in passing a timely order cannot lead to an interpretation in favour of the employee,” the judge held.

In this case, Nitin Malik was dismissed from the post of deputy secretary in the Haryana Vidhan Sabha on July 5, 2016. His main grouse was that he had joined service as deputy secretary on May 2, 2013 and maximum period of probation — three years in this case — was to expire on May 1, 2016. He was, however, dismissed on July 5, 2016 and he claimed this was illegal as his probation period had already ended.

Contesting his plea, the Haryana Vidhan Sabha said the petitioner did not regularly attend office since December 2014 and had remained absent without intimation and without submitting leave application. According to the Haryana Vidhan Sabha Secretariat Service Rules, 1981, the total period of probation, including extension, if any, shall not exceed three years. The respondent admitted the rule exists, but added that the petitioner had remained absent from duty for more than six months during his probation period.

Upholding his dismissal, the high court observed that the order could not be set aside only on the ground that the petitioner had completed three years of probation and he was to be treated as a regular employee. “The Competent Authority as per Rule 10(3) of Rules 1981 has to pass an order of confirmation, which in the present case has not been done, keeping in view the work and conduct of the petitioner, who was a regular absentee,” high court held

Have something to say? Post your comment