Automatic Confirmation Cannot Be Claimed As A Matter Of Right After The Expiration Of The Probation Period: Madhya Pradesh HC

FACTS OF THE CASE

• After conducting the required medical and character verification, the petitioner, on 1st January 2014, was appointed to the post of constable for two years.
• One condition was put for the appointment order. It said that, keeping in view the Rule 12 of the Madhya Pradesh Government Servants Rules, 1960, the services of the petitioner can be discontinued by submitting one month’s notice or one month’s advance salary in lieu thereof.
• The petitioner remained on leave from 15th April 2017, due to his father’s sickness and did not submit his joining after that.
• Due to this, according to the provisions of Regulation 59 of the Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations, his services were discontinued from 2nd January 2018.

APPEAL BY THE PETITIONER

• The petitioner filed an appeal against the order of 2nd January 2018 before the Inspector General of Police, SAF, Gwalior Range, Gwalior.
• On 9th April 2018, this appeal got rejected.
• He again filed a mercy appeal, but this too got dismissed by the impugned order 30th August 2018.
• After that, the petitioner approached the High Court and challenged the order dated 2nd January 2018.

CONTENTIONS MADE BY THE PETITIONER’S COUNSEL

• The counsel of the petitioner claimed that the order of 2nd January 2018 does not disclose the reasons for stopping the petitioner’s services.
• But in the appeal, it was clearly mentioned that the petitioner was in a habit of staying on unauthorized leaves and on such an occasion, a minor penalty was imposed upon him.
• Further, he submitted that a Departmental Enquiry should be conducted against the petitioner, as the reasons which were assigned by Appellate Authority were sigmatic in nature.
• He also brought to the court’s notice that although the original period of probation was for two years, but Regulation 59 of Madhya Pradesh Police Regulations provide that the period of probation can be extended to six months, twice.
• He further argued that, as no specific order was issued, thereby confirming him in service, after the completion of the probation period.
• Therefore it was presumed by the petitioner that he was in the service and accordingly his service could not be terminated without holding a Departmental Enquiry.

CONTENTIONS MADE BY RESPONDENT’S COUNSEL

• The State’s counsel submitted that it was a discontinuous simpliciter without any further allegations as no reasons were assigned in the impugned order.
• As per the grounds raised in the appeals, the question of absence of reasons was only mentioned in the memo of appeal presented by the petitioner.
• Therefore, the appellate authority had taken into account the previous conduct of the petitioner, and this cannot be alleged to be stigmatic in nature.
• He further argued that there was no provision of law which stated that the employee should be treated to be confirmed in the service, if the order of extension of probation was not passed, even after the completion of probation period.

OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE COURT

• As the petitioner did not provide any medical prescriptions showing that his father was seriously ill, the Government employee must not be permitted to remain on unauthorized absence without informing the Department.
• This must be strictly followed when he is a Constable in SAF, because of him being a part of a uniform disciplined force.
• The Bench also looked at the failure of the petitioner's counsel in pointing out any provision of law to support the case that when the probation period was not extended after the period of three years, including the extensions from the date of appointment, the petitioner must be treated as a confirmed employee.
• Thus, the Court relied on Rule 8 and Rule 12 of the 1960 Rules and observed that temporary employee's services could be terminated by either issuing one month's notice or by making payment of one month's advance salary in lieu of notice.

DO YOU THINK THE TERMINATION IS JUSTIFIED?