Termination Of Services Of A Probationer Under Rules Of Employment Or In Exercise Of Contractual Right Is Neither Dismissal Nor Removal: Allahabad High Court

The Court upheld the termination of a probationer (Petitioner) noting the substantive allegations against him that he was not discharging his duties diligently. The Court dismissed his writ petition, finding that the termination was not punitive and that the principles of natural justice were substantially complied with.

A Single Bench of Justice Saurabh Shyam Shamshery held, “It is well settled that termination of services of a probationer under the Rules of the Employment or in exercise of Contractual Right is neither per se dismissal nor removal. However, if the order visits the employee against his character or integrity, it would be an order by way of punishment irrespective of whether the employee was a mere probationer or temporary. If he was terminated without giving a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against his termination and even in such matters if the principles of natural justice were followed and there was no deficiency of the procedure, the writ Court would not inclined to interfere.”

Advocate H.N. Malhotra appeared for the Petitioner, while Senior Advocate V.K. Singh represented the Respondents.

Brief Facts

The Petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on a one-year probation, which was extended for another by a resolution of the Committee of Management. However, before the completion of his extended probation, he was served with a charge sheet.

The inquiry committee found all charges against him to be proved and recommended non-extension of his probation, effectively terminating his services. A show cause notice was issued to him, calling for a reply before a final decision.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court noted that the Petitioner was present at the inquiry proceedings and had signed the attendance sheet, refuting his claim that he was not given a proper opportunity to defend himself.

The Court further noted, “As referred above, the petitioner was under probation, therefore, if his work was not satisfactory, the Committee of Management can pass an order not to extend his probation. The allegation against the petitioner mainly was that he was not discharging his duties as Assistant Teacher, Vyayam diligently and he was disturbing the normal working of college. It has been stated that instead of encouraging students of college concerned, he took other students for a competition of Kabaddi. The said allegation has not been specifically denied on the basis of relevant material and statements of witnesses recorded during inquiry including statments.”

The Bench stated, “The contents of the counter affidavit and annexure annexed therewith would be sufficient to show that the petitioner has appeared in pursuance of the show cause notice and has put signature in the meeting dated 25.11.2007. Therefore, the submission of counsel for petitioner that at stage of show cause notice, principles of natural justice were not followed would be contrary to record.”

Consequently, the Court held, “In above referred circumstances and taking note of allegations, which are substantive that the petitioner was not discharging his duties diligently and standard of games were neither improved nor students of college were encourgaged to participate in competetion, the Court is of view that impugned order whereby probation period was not extended and service was terminated does not require any interference. The impugned order dated 26.11.2007 therefore is upheld.”

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition.

Cause Title: Sanjay Kumar Sengar v. State of U.P. & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2025:AHC:29188)

Appearance:

Petitioner: Advocates H.N. Malhotra, Ajay Bhanot, Gaurav Singh, Kripa Shanker Singh, L.S. Yadav, Pankaj Kumar and Ravindra Mishra

Respondents: Senior Advocate V.K. Singh; Advocates Samarth Singh, G.K. Singh, Hritudhwaj Pratap Sahi, R.K. Ojha and Sankalp Narain; CSC Akhilesh Kumar Singh

Click here to read/download the Judgment