Gaurav Kumar & Others vs High Court Of Delhi

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

In both these petitions, the petitioners complain that for the orders terminating their probation from employment as Chauffeur/Drivers, no material

has come on record. Both the petitioners were employed by the Delhi High Court Establishment at the same time, i.e., in the year 2013. It is

emphasized that the work appraisal note issued by the concerned Assistant Registrar in the year 2015 records that the work performed by them was

good and satisfactory. It is submitted that in the light of these facts and that no memo was ever issued to either of them highlighting any default on

their part or lack of devotion on their part, their probation could not have been terminated summarily by invocation of Rule 5 of the Central Civil

Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Ms. Saahila Lamba, who appears on behalf of both the petitioners, further highlighted that apart from the satisfactory note issued by the concerned

Assistant Registrar, in the absence of any memo, a comparison of the leave availed of by the petitioners, with the leave availed by other chauffeurs,

whose services were confirmed, shows that in fact there is no discernible pattern and that to the contrary, those, moved on leaves at the relevant time

were confirmed. Emphasizing the need for showing some memos, learned counsel also juxtaposed the petitioner’s case with the conduct of one

Mr.Anil Kumar and Mr. Nitesh Kaushik in whose case there were serious allegations warranting memos that lead to the termination of their

probation.

A careful reading of the minutes of the meeting of the concerned Committee, which examined the proposal for confirmation of service and

declaration that the concerned employees have successfully completed their probation would show that in every case, the Committee looked into the

record, in the light of the report furnished to it. The petitioner’s record and the reports speak of their tendency to avail of leave often; emphasizing

that they were habituated to avoiding duties, on one pretext or the other. The petitioners’ argument to this effect is that there is no memo or any

other documents on record to substantiate such allegations.

This court notices that the work and conduct of the petitioners and other drivers was monitored on a day to day basis by the concerned official of

the Protocol Branch including the concerned Assistant Registrar, who in fact deploy them on daily basis. The petitioners did not complain of malice on

the part of any such officer; in fact, they rely on recording made in general terms by the concerned Assistant Registrar for the year 2015. In these

circumstances, if that officer had the basis to assess their work on a daily basis and on the objective assessment of discharge of their duties, felt that

they availed of leave (which is a fact discernible from the record) and were also habituated to avoiding performance of duty on flimsy pretexts or the

other, in such a situation, the report is to be given due weight rather than to brush aside merely on the ground that no memo was issued. The

concerned Committee of the Court comprising of Judges carefully looked into the record and decided that these petitioners, besides other five, should

not be continued in employment and that in the greater good of the establishment, it was necessary to terminate their probation. This court is not

satisfied that the petitioners have shown any illegality, procedural irregularity in any manner of the issuance of the termination order nor they have

been able to establish malice or malafide in any form whatsoever.

In these circumstances, these petitions have to fail. Accordingly, the writ petitions are dismissed.