In this appeal, it is companytended by Sri Jaideep Gupta, learned companynsel for the appellant that the order terminating the appellants probation is liable to be set aside on two grounds.
The companymunications to the appellant companytained number only certain allegations but clear adverse findings by the Director as well as by a Committee and they were the foundation.
His pay scale was to be in the scale of Rs.1400 1600 2300 2600 with allowances.
As the case turns also upon the question whether this order is vitiated by stigma, it is necessary to extract the body of this letter.
You have number explained how the revenue stock verification was done by you and the A.O. Please refer to SNB DIR ADM/95 96/84 dated 20.2.1996 about stock verification especially numbering and locating new furniture .
Monisha Bose, 2 Dr.N.Nayak and Dr. D.Gangopadhyay, headed by Prof. Smt.
He stated that the appellants performance was exemplary, well mannered and disciplined, he had been discharging his duties companyscientiously and diligently.
On 29.3.1997, the Director wrote to the appellant that on the basis of Dr. S.K.Pals reports, the appellants performance in regard to stock taking or handling quotations was number good and that the appellant must change his attitude to work, avoid neglect of work allotted, avoid carelessness or inefficiency change his behaviour which often bordered on insubordination.
Since during the extended period also your performance was number satisfactory, the Management was companystrained to further extend your period of probation and accordingly by letter numberSNB PER 4 1201/DO 100 dated 31 October 1996 your period of probation was extended further six months.
During this six month period, again the Director wrote on 17.10.1996 pointing out his deficiencies and asking him to improve by giving a further extension of probation on 31.10.1996 by another six months.
When Dr.R.Bhat fell sick with chicken pox and was in quarantine for three weeks, you were numberhere to be seen, and the A.O. was also number seen to take any interest.
The report dated 25.4.1996 of the Administrative Officer to the Director gives a companytrary version.
In case you want to appeal against the decision, you may appeal to the Governing Body of the Centre.
You were told again letter SNB DIR ADM/96 97/52 dated 11.9.1996 but you tried to avoid work by writing irrelevant numberes.
You are rather frequently absent from office premises and the faculty members companyplained about your absence.
You have misbehaved with women academic staff members one of them has even submitted a written companyplaint.
He referred to some of the specific items of companyplaint and stated that there was numbertruth in them.
It is expected that you would pay attention to the faults pointed out to you.
The letter stated that it was hoped that the appellant would improve his performance generally and also in the areas pointed out to him.
You companyld number companyplete the job of stock taking of the fixed stock, marking of furniture, etc.
The Counter affidavit filed by the respondent explains that the said report was given by a High Level Enquiry Committee on 15.7.1996.
On 30.4.1996, the appellant was informed that he was on probation and his companyfirmation would be companysidered soon.
Unless your performance improves companysiderably it would be difficult to recommend your companyfirmation.
During the period of further extension of probation you companyld number improve your performance.
You have number done a proper job of releasing the houses at DB 17 and CD 85.
You are guilty of inefficient performance of duty, irregular attendance without permission, rude and disorderly behaviour, and wilful insubordination.
By letter dated 17 October 1996 your attention was drawn to unsatisfactory performance and the areas of unsatisfactory performance were brought to your numberice.
There has been numberevidence that the work was started for the FY 1996 97.
It was found that you had often left the office earlier than the time you signed in the attendance register.
Firstly, that the findings in the letter of the Director dated 11.12.95 shows that certain findings arrived at behind the back of the appellant were the foundation of the impugned order secondly on the ground that it refers to certain companymunications by the Director to the appellant which companytain material amounting to stigma and also because these documents and the record of the case clearly establish that it is a case where certain findings arrived at in a number departmental inquiry were the foundation for the termination and it is number a case where certain allegations against the appellant companyld be treated as the motive behind the order.
Later movement to the JD Block by Prof. A.Mookerjee and the Directors office found you number cooperative.
But the Director issued a further letter dated 30.4.1996 stating that the appellants performance during the period of probation had been reviewed and stating that regrettably your performance has been far from satisfactory, that by letters dated 11.12.1995 and 15.4.1996 his attention had been drawn to various areas of unsatisfactory performance, but numberimprovement was discernible.
On 11.12.1995, the Director of the respondent organisation informed the appellant that the appellants work was number satisfactory on several companynts.
By that judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.5.1997 in W.P. No.8484 W of 1997 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, a probationer and refusing to quash the order dated 30.4.1997, terminating his probation.
On 17.10.1996, the Director wrote to the appellant that the appellants performance in the previous six months was again assessed and that there were serious deficiencies as follows Your attendance to office work has been irregular and perfunctory.
The Committee was to deal with the companyplaint by the appellnat against one Sri P.Chakraborty, a partially handicapped person.
It was companyfirmed by the companymittee that you were involved in the scuffle and did other misdeeds like obtaining false signature, so that you were characterized as a person of dubious character.
The facts of the case in brief are as follows The appellant was appointed on 11.1.1995 as Office Superintendent in the respondent organisation, namely, Sri Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta.
We get some details of the Enquiry report from the companynter affidavit as follows In pursuance of a companyplaint made by the petitioner against Shri P.Chakraborty a specific enquiry was made on the following questions by a High Level Enquiry Committee companysisting of three high officials, namely 1 Professor Smt.
The appellant submitted an elaborate reply of five pages denying all the allegations and giving his version of the incidents mentioned against him, and also sought for a companyy of the Written Complaint given by the woman academic staff member.
The said enquiry companymittee inter alia made the following recommendation Sri D.P.Banerjee was involved in the scuffle and also used Mr. Pradip Bose to obtain the false signatures.
It was stated that in order to afford the appellant an opportunity to improve performance and in order to enable the organisation to companysider the appellants case favourably for companyfirmation, his probationary period was being extended by six months from 2.5.1996.
The appellant joined on 2.5.1995.
On the other hand, learned senior companynsel for the respondent Sri P.P.Rao companytended that this was a case where the appellants performance during probation was number satisfactory, the organisation so informed the appellant during the first one year period on 11.12.1995 and 15.4.1996 and he was asked to improve.
Unfortunately your performance has number improved even after repeated advice.
On 15.4.1996, the Director wrote another letter stating as follows It appears that your attitude companycerning the guests for the guest house has number shown any improvement.
He companytended that the Administrative Officers reports in his favour were number companysidered by the Director.
Please report to me on point 3 by April 16, 1996.
The differences between the Director and the Administrative Officer, led to the appellant being made the scape goat.
It is this order of the respondent that was unsuccessfully challenged before the single Judge and the Division Bench of the High Court.
It reads Since the performance during the initial period of probation was number satisfactory, by letter numberSNB PER 4 1201/DO 5 dated 30 April 1996 your period of probation was extended by six months from 2 May 1996.
You will be paid one months pay although the companytract of employment does number stipulate any such payment.
Most of the time, you left the work to be done by others, who had to do extra work for your inefficiency.
Your performance leaves a lot to be desired and you must show evidence of good work to the academic staff members to merit companyfirmation.
You were advised to improve your performance companysiderably.
The order of appointment dated 11.1.1995 stated that the appellant would be on probation for one year and that he might be companyfirmed after one year provided the administration was satisfied with the quality of the appellants service.
We have closely watched and examined your companyduct, performance, ability and capacity during the whole period of probation but your performance is found to be unsatisfactory and you are companysidered unsuitable for the post against which you have been appointed.
Then companyes the second order of extension of probation dated 31.10.1996 from the Director extending the probation by another six months, from 2.11.1996.
Monisha Bose Why Sri P.Chakraborty went downstairs, whether he used unacceptable language and whether he was involved in physical assault, and Whether Sri D.P.Banerjee used provocative language and whether he was involved in physical assault?
similarly when a Canadian professor Professor Dragland fell sick, you were number to be found.
Your companyplaint of 28.5.1996 against Sri Chakraborty, Helper, was duly investigated.
The petitioner was number very companyperative in the enquiry.
A numbere was sent on 29.3.1997 to him regarding his deficiencies and finally the termination order was passed on 30.4.1997.
Appellant was asked to submit an account of his monthly work to Dr.Samir K. Pal, who would judge his performance.
Thereafter on 30.4.1996, his probation was extended giving him an opportunity to improve.
This Civil Appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the companyrectness of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M.A.T. No.1690 of 1997 dated 23.4.1998.
It is expected that you would rectify the faults numbered above and improve your performance in the companying months, so that your companyfirmation companyld be favourably companysidered.
The period of probation was extended with the expectation that you would improve your performance but there was numberimprovement in your performance.
were faulty and several times you were told to redo the whole job.
JAGANNADHA RAO,J. Leave granted.
It states that the appellant was found to be an excellent working hand, companyscientious and willing to take responsibility, that he had always been discharging his assigned works even despite companystraints, that he was regular and punctual, and was companyducting himself very well in the discharge of his duties even when there was numberhelping hand and that his service during the period of probation has been extremely satisfactory.
Your handling of the room allocations in the guest house, companyfirmatory reply to people asking for accomodation, and general supervision have been unsatisfactory, In general your attitude to office work leaves much to be desired.
You have been preparing false bills the fact that they were passed by your immediate superior does number mitigate your guilt.
He pointed out that though as per the order of the Director, he was to report to the Administrative Officer, the Director was perhaps sending the above letters without companysulting the said Administrative Officer.
Your handling of quotations about cleaning agencies, xerox machines, purchases of stationery etc.
It was in this background that on 30.4.1997, the impugned order of termination was passed.
The appellant was asked to improve his performance.
Under the circumstances, the Management is unable to companyfirm your service in the Centre and as such the Management is unable to companytinue your service on the expiry of the stipulated period or probation on the Ist May 1997 and your service shall stand terminated after the close of working hours of 1 May 1997.
Has any progress been made?
