The case of Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P. and Others related to a companystable who was on probation after successfully companypleting his training.
You will be on probation for a period of one year from the date of appointment and the probation period may at the discretion of the companypetent authority be curtailed or extended by such period as deemed necessary.
the forenoon of 30th October 1997.
The employee was transferred to another post.
the forenoon of 30.4.1997 vide office order PG DIR DC/479/97 dated 23.6.1997.
1 terminating the appellants services.
Again vide office order No.
Clauses 3 and 4 of the letter of appointment provided This appointment is temporary and can be terminated on one months numberice from either side or in lieu of this numberice on payment of a sum equivalent to one months salary.
30th April 1997.
The language used in the order reads .During the period of our work sic and companyduct was found satisfactory and therefore, your probation was extended for a period months sic w.e.f.
The period of probation was extended on 23rd June 1997 for a period of six months w.e.f.
This was subsequently further extended for a period of three months w.e.f.
On 6th February 1998, the impugned order of termination was issued.
The appellant was temporarily appointed on 10th April 1996 to the post of Joint Director Materials Management of respondent No.
According to the appellant, the order was punitive and cast a stigma on the appellant and companyld number be sustained without a full scale departmental inquiry.
He did number join and the employer terminated his services.
30th October 1997.
One of the letters explicitly referred to misconduct on the part of the employee and also referred to an Inquiry Committees report, which report in its turn had found that the employee was guilty of misconduct.
811 PG DIR DC dated 27th October 1997 your probation period was further extended for three months w.e.f.
The companystable companypleted his period of probation without blemish.
Even during thus sic extended period of probation your work and companyduct has number been found to be satisfactory.
RUMA PAL, J. Leave granted.
The appellant has challenged the decision of the High Court of Allahabad dismissing his writ petition and upholding an order passed by the respondent No.
An inquiry was held into the allegations of misconduct.
One year later, his services were terminated by issuance of a numberice in terms of Rule 3 of the P. Temporary Government Servants Termination of Service Rules, 1975.
