Supreme Court of India
GANGANAGAR ZILA DUGDH UTPADAK SAHKARI SANGH LTD. AND ANR. versus PRIYANKA JOSHI AND ANR.
- Decided
- 19 July 1999
- Judges listed
- B.N. KIRPAL, S. RAJENDRA BABU
- Disposal
- Appeal(s) allowed
Citations
- Official
- [1999] 3 S.C.R. 968 · 1999 INSC 280
- Also cited as
- (1999) 6 SCC 214
Learned from how other judgments cite this one, in their text or in the official Supreme Court Reports' lists of cases they refer to: each is cited this way by at least two judgments, and at least twice as often as any other citation to this judgment in that report. We hold no commercial reporter's text, only these citation strings.
- Not shown
- 1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.
Cited by
We found no other Supreme Court judgment we hold that cites this one.
Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.
The Court's text
Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.
Special leave granted.
p. 968, margin H
The respondent was employed as an Assistant Manager on 6th October, 1993. She was put on probation for one year. It appears that leave was granted to her from 16th October, 1994 to 25th October, 1994. Thereafer, she did not join duty despite notices dated 7th November , 1994 and 23rd November, 1994.
p. 969, margin A
Impugned order dated 30th November, 1994 was passed which reads as follows:
p. 969, margin A
"Smt. Priyanka Joshi, Assistant Manager (Plant) is being BARK.HAST (dismiss) from the service of Sangh with effect from the afternoon today dated 30.11.94 under Gangmul Service Rules, 1992."
p. 969, margin B
The respondent filed a writ petition contending that her services could not be terminated without following the procedure of holding an inquiry. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition holding that the impugned order did not cast any stigma. The respondent then filed an appeal which was allowed by the High Court by holding that the perusal of the impugned order showed that it was an order of dismissal and did cast a stigma.
p. 969, margin C
In our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court was not correct in the conclusion which it arrived at. It is not in dispute that when the order dated 30th November, 1994 was passed, the respondent was still on probation. The reason for passing of the said order appears to be the absence of the respondent from duty. In the order of appointment, it was clearly stipulated that the respondent's services could be terminated during the probationary period if the services were unsatisfatory. When judging the performance of a person ifthe services are terminated during the period of probation, obviously there has to be a reason for such termination. If the services are terminated during the probationary period without any reason whatsoever, it is possible that such an order may be impugned on the ground that it has been passed arbitrarily. On the other hand, when there is a reason for terminating the services during the probationary period and the order terminating services is worded in an innocuous manner, we do not see any force in the contention that such an order has to be regarded as by way of punishment.
p. 969, margin D
Impugned order dated 30th November, 1994 is only of one sentence which states that the respondent's services were being BARKHAST 'dismissed'. The real word used there was 'Barkhast' and under the circumstances even the use of the word 'dismissed' cannot, in our opinion, be regarded as by way of punishment.
p. 969, margin G
For the aforesaid r:eason, the appeal is allowed. The judgment Division Bench is set aside with the result that the writ petition filed respondent in the High Court stands dismissed. RP. Appeal allowed.
p. 970, margin A