Dismissed

Kumari Anupama v. Union of India and 4 Others

Allahabad HC12 Sept 2025WRIA/13158/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Probationer LDC's services were terminated after unsatisfactory performance, DPC recommendation and unauthorized absence; petitioner claimed she was on sanctioned medical leave. Court held leave was never sanctioned and discharge of a probationer without inquiry is permissible, upholding the Tribunal's decision.

What the court decided

AI extract

Kumari Anupama vs Union of India and 4… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD

¶2

WRIT - A No. - 13158 of 2025

¶3

Kumari Anupama

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

	Versus
Union of India and 4 others	.....Respondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: P.N. Shukla for Suresh Yadav, Prabha Sehgal
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: A.S.G.I., Rajesh Tripathi

¶6

Chief Justice's Court

¶7

HON'BLE ARUN BHANSALI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE KSHITIJ SHAILENDRA, J.

¶8

This writ petition has been filed challenging the order dated 04.06.2025, whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ('the Tribunal') has dismissed Original Application (O.A.) No. 1473 of 2013 (Kumari Anupama Vs. Union of India and others) filed by the petitioner declining to interfere in the order terminating her services as well as further orders passed by the respondents rejecting her representations.

¶9

As per the case of the petitioner, she was appointed as Lower Divisional Clerk (LDC) at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalay, Rampur Maniharan, Saharanpur ('the Institution') on 28.09.2006 on probation for a period of two years. She moved a complaint against the Principal of the Institution raising allegations of sexual harassment, whereafter she was attached at Dehradun vide order dated 02.04.2008 and was relieved from the Institution on 02.05.2008. The representation moved by her raising grievance against relieving and attachment was rejected by the authority on 30.05.2008. Vide orders dated 18.05.2009 and 12.10.2009, the probation period of the petitioner was extended by the respondents. According to the petitioner, she was on medical leave w.e.f. 28.11.2009 to 03.04.2010 and after obtaining fitness certificates, she again joined her duties on 04.04.2010.

¶10

Further case of the petitioner is that a First Information Report, registered at Crime No. 82 of 2008, was lodged by her mother against the

¶11

WRIA No. 13158 of 2025

¶12

¶13

Principal of the Institution under Section 509 IPC, pursuant whereto, the police submitted charge sheet, challenging which proceedings, a Criminal Misc. Writ Petition was filed by respondent no. 4 before this Court in which further proceedings in criminal case based upon FIR have been stayed. Later on, services of the petitioner were terminated on 19.04.2010, against which, she filed a representation dated 31.05.2010 and on account of non-consideration of the representation, she approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1921 of 2010, which was disposed of on 12.01.2011 directing the respondent no. 2 to take appropriate decision on the representation.

¶14

A fresh representation dated 28.04.2011 was also filed by the petitioner and, by an order dated 18.05.2011, the representations were rejected, whereafter the matter was placed before the Departmental Promotion Committee ('DPC') to assess performance of the petitioner during her probation period, however, the Department did not find her performance satisfactory and representation filed by the petitioner in that regard was also rejected. She, then, approached the Ministry of Human Resource Development seeking review of termination order dated 19.04.2010 as well as order dated 18.05.2011 rejecting her representation. The Assistant Commissioner, Establishment, by an order dated 11.02.2013, indicated that no representation was pending. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner approached the Tribunal challenging the orders dated 19.04.2010, 18.05.2011 and 11.02.2013.

¶15

By filing counter affidavit against the O.A. before the Tribunal, stand was taken by the respondents that certain material facts were suppressed by the petitioner; she did not join the Institution after rejection of her representation; she did not comply with the transfer order, rather indulged in unwarranted litigation and probation period of the petitioner was extended twice, however, lastly, the DPC recommended for termination of her services. As regards the plea qua medical leave, stand was taken that mere submission of application seeking leave would not ipso facto amount to sanction of leave and, therefore, unauthorized absence of the petitioner from the Institution was also one of the reasons for terminating her services.

¶16

WRIA No. 13158 of 2025

¶17

¶18

The Tribunal, after considering the case of the parties, dismissed the O.A. by observing that since the petitioner was on probation and her services were never confirmed, her conduct was assessed by the respondents and it did not find any error in either of the orders impugned before it.

¶19

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made submissions that the petitioner was sexually harassed by the Principal of the Institution qua which she moved complaint which resulted in passing of all the orders against her. Learned counsel also referred to filing of a criminal case at the instance of petitioner's mother and submitted that her services were terminated treating her absent from duties with effect from 28.11.2009 to 19.04.2010, although she was on medical leave during that period and, therefore, the termination order is liable to be set aside.

¶20

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that admittedly the petitioner was on probation and though period of probation was extended twice, ultimately it was for the Department to assess the work and conduct of the petitioner and having found the same as unbecoming of an employee in an educational institution, her services were rightly terminated. It is further contended that at no point of time medical leave was sanctioned to the petitioner and, therefore, unauthorized absence for a long period of five months and for other reasons including the fact that serious infirmities were found in appointment of the petitioner so much so that appointment was secured by offering illegal gratification to the then Principal of the Institution and when asked to clear a typing test, she refused to perform the task and even could not answer certain simple questions relating to typing. It is further contended that the allegations of causing sexual harassment were not found established against the Principal in the inquiry conducted.

¶21

We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.

¶22

It is not in dispute that the petitioner was working only as a probationer. Though she treated lodging of complaint against the Principal of the Institution as the ground for dispensation of her services, the order of termination indicates that her overall performance during the

¶23

WRIA No. 13158 of 2025

¶24

¶25

period of probation was found unsatisfactory. When she preferred representation pursuant to earlier order passed by the Tribunal, the same was rejected by recording a specific finding that she was appointed for a period of two years on probation but was not discharging her duties satisfactorily; she was issued warnings and advisory memos several times and while she was working at J.N.V. Saharanpur, the District Magistrate, on a complaint, informed the Department that based upon the inquiry, serious irregularities in the appointment of the petitioner had come to light.

¶26

It is further recorded in the order rejecting representation that looking into the gravity of the issue, a departmental inquiry was conducted by the Assistant Commissioner, who submitted his report dated 06.09.2007 to the effect that the petitioner, on being asked to appear in typing test, refused to do so and when she was temporarily attached to J.N.V., Saharanpur, she remained absent w.e.f. 28.11.2009 to 19.04.2010; her case was placed before the DPC which recommended for terminating her services. The order further indicates that not only during the initial probation period but also during extended period of 18 months, performance of the petitioner remained unsatisfactory and, hence, the order terminating services was not found illegal.

¶27

Though learned counsel has relied upon certain medical certificates issued from the office of Chief Medical Officer, Saharanpur so as to justify petitioner's absence from duty for a period of five months, there is nothing on record to indicate that any application for leave allegedly submitted by the petitioner was ever sanctioned by the respondents. In view thereof, we are not inclined to accept the submission that the petitioner was on medical leave for the aforesaid period and, hence, her absence from duty is found unauthorized.

¶28

We further find that not only the respondents but also the Tribunal has made thoughtful consideration of the pleas raised by the petitioner qua her services on probation vis-a-vis termination and the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal, based upon the discussion made and following the law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rajesh Kohli Vs. High Court of J&K, (2010) 12 SCC 783 and Satya Narayan Athya Vs. High Court of

¶29

WRIA No. 13158 of 2025

¶30

¶31

(Kshitij Shailendra,J.) (Arun Bhansali,CJ.)

¶32

M.P. (1996) 1 SCC 560, does not suffer from any perversity or illegality so as to warrant interference by this Court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Satya Narayan Athya (supra) has held that it is not necessary that there should be a charge against a probationer or an inquiry qua his conduct and it would be open for the employer to consider whether a probationer is suitable for confirmation or should be discharged from duties.

¶33

For all the aforesaid reasons, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Consequently, the writ petition has no merit and is, accordingly, dismissed .

¶34

October 29, 2025

¶35

AKShukla/-

¶36

Digitally signed by :- ANIL KUMAR SHUKLA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Kumari Anupama v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Kumari Anupama v. Union of India and 4 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Azad Foundation vs State of U.P. and 18 Others

Harischandra Mishra vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 9 Others

Mohd Shaqib and Another vs State of U.P. and 6 Others

Sudheer Kumar vs State of Uttar Pradesh and 8 Others

Dhirendra Kumar Tripathi vs Uttar Pradesh Rajya Bajriya and 3 Others

Dharamveer Singh Mahawal and Another vs District Basic Education Officer and 3 Others