Supreme Court of India
K.V. KRISHNAMANI versus LALIT ACADEMY
- Decided
- 10 May 1996
- Judges listed
- K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK
- Disposal
- Dismissed
Citations
- Official
- [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 844 · 1996 INSC 681
- Also cited as
- (1996) 5 SCC 89
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.
Leave granted. We have heavd learned counsel on both sides.
p. 844, margin F
This appeal arises out of the order of the Delhi High Court in Writ petition No. 3695 of 1990 made on April 30, 1991. The appellant was appointed initially on ad hoc basis on March 3, 1987 and thereafter with a view to regularise his services, he was put on probation. During probation, his services having been found to be not satisfactory, were terminated by proceedings dated December 1, 1989. The appellant came to challenge the same by filing writ petition in November 1990 which was dismissed by the High Court. Thus this appeal by special leave.
pp. 844–845, margin G
It is contended by the appellant that since the avermments made .in the counter would constitute foundation for dismissal for misconduct, an enquiry in. this behalf was required to be made. On the other hand, it is contended by the respondent that during the probation the appellant did not acquire any right to the post. If on being fou~d suitable he was regularised, only then he would have acquired the right to continue in the post. During probation, it was found that his services were not satisfactory and reasons were given in support thereof. Thus they do not constitute foundation but motive to terminate the services. We find force in the contention of the respondent. They have explained that the driving of the staff car was not satisfactory and that, therefore, they have terminated the services.of-the appellant during probation. The very object of the probation is to test the suitability and if the appointing authority finds that the candidate is not suitable, it certainly has power to terminate the services of the employee. Under these circumstances, it cannot but be held that the reasons mentione.d constitute motive and not foundation for termination of service. Therefore, we. hold that the. High Court has not committed any error of law. ·
p. 845, margin A
The appeal is accordingly dismissed. No costs. R.P. Appeal dismissed.
p. 845, margin D