Can Services of an Employee be terminated without Notice during Probation? SC answers

---

 

 Termination of Employment

27 Nov 2021

 

By : Sheetal Joon- Content Editor with LatestLaws

 

Categories : Case Analysis Latest News

The Supreme Court in one of its recent order has reiterated on whether an employer can cancel the candidature or terminate service during probation period without serving Notice.

The Bench comprising of Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice Hrishikesh Roy answered on validity of termination simplicitor if the employee suppresses any event or submit false information.

Brief Facts of the Case

The appeallant herein was selected and appointed as SubInspector in Delhi Police Service. While he was undergoing training, the respondents received a complaint stating that the appellant was a deserter from the Army and after he deserted Army in 1992, he was declared as absconder.

Upon this, the respondents inquired about the antecedents of the appellant and confirmed on the complaint. Accordingly, termination simplicitor was served to the appeallant.

Aggrieved, he approached the Delhi High Court against the impugned order but the Court passed the judgement in Respondent's favour. Therefore the present appeal before Supreme Court.

Agruements and Supreme Court Observation

It is the case of the appeallant that he was not given any opportunity in the inquiry and the impugned order is passed by conducting inquiry behind his back. It is further submitted that his services were terminated alleging that he was a deserter from the Army, as such, respondents ought to have conducted inquiry by giving opportunity before his termination. 

The Counsel for the Appellant placed reliance on Commr. of Police and Ors Vs Sandeep Kumar, 2011 Latest Caselaw 224 SC.

The Respondents, on the other hand submitted that the order impugned is a termination simplicitor, there was no need to conduct an inquiry, as much as, the service of the appellant was not confirmed. They alleged that the respondents supressed the event of his desertion from the Army in the attestation form and therefore his services were terminated during probation in exercise of power under provison to sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1965.

The Court on the outset observed that during the period of probation, it is always open to the employer to verify the antecedents of a temporary appointee, in case any information is received by way of complaint or otherwise.

 

The Court further noted that since the termination is based on supression of useful information, no inquiry was needed on part of the Respondent and thus the contention of the Appeallant's Counsel that his client wasn't provided any opportunity to present himself doesn't stand. 

"Merely because the antecedents were verified by addressing a letter to the SHO/ Inderpuri, it cannot be said that respondents have conducted regular inquiry, so as to give an opportunity to the appellant. In absence of any allegation in the impugned order, the order of termination dated 14.08.1996 cannot be said to be an order casting stigma on the appellant."

 The Court placed reliance on Avatar Singh vs Union of India, wherein the Supreme Court held that that in the event of any suppression or on submitting false information, it is always open for the employer to cancel the candidature or terminate service.

“32. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty-bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non-disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.”

The Court thus dismissed the petition and refused to interfere with Delhi HC judgement.

Read Order Here:

 

  

SOURCE ;LAWNEWS

Social media is bold.


Social media is young.

Social media raises questions.

 Social media is not satisfied with an answer.

Social media looks at the big picture.

 Social media is interested in every detail.

social media is curious.

 Social media is free.

Social media is irreplaceable.

But never irrelevant.

Social media is you.

(With input from news agency language)

 If you like this story, share it with a friend!  


    We are a non-profit organization. Help us financially to keep our journalism free from government and corporate pressure