The High Court disposed of a writ petition regarding an employee's termination. The Court upheld a Tribunal's order finding the employee deemed confirmed because he served beyond the statutory probation period, rejecting the argument for a departmental inquiry.
The Writ Petition was disposed of and the Rule was discharged with no costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
W.P.No.2398/01
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2398 OF 2001
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions and Registrar's orders.
Court's or Judge's orders
Mr.G.K.Naik Thigle, Addl. Govt. Pleader for the Petitioner.
Mr.S.B.Bhapkar and Mr.C.R.Bharaswadkar, advocates for the Respondent.
CORAM : S.V.GANGAPURWALA & A.I.S.CHEEMA,JJ. Date : 30.03.2015.
PER COURT :
petitioner was terminated in the year 1985. The petitioner was appointed in the year 1980 on probation. His probation was not completed. The petitioner did not confirm the Respondent in service. The Tribunal could not have held that it is a case of deemed confirmation in service. According to learned Addl. Govt. Pleader, the Tribunal committed an error in considering the Respondent to be a deemed confirmed employee. It is for the petitioner to assess the service of the Respondent and then to confirm him in service. As the Respondent was on probation,
2
W.P.No.2398/01
Departmental Inquiry is not required to be conducted before taking action.
(A.I.S.CHEEMA,J.) (S.V.GANGAPURWALA,J.)
Dt..30.03.2015. asp/office/wp3496.01
3
W.P.No.2398/01
2 issues framed by the court
Whether deeming of confirmation in service was correct when employee remained on service beyond the statutory probation period without departmental inquiry.
Whether the Writ Petition showed any case for interference given the Tribunal's findings on deemed confirmation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Petitioner
Respondent
S.V.GANGAPURWALA
A.I.S.CHEEMA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
