Employer has right to sack unsuitable probationer — SC

If the termination of a person’s job during the probation period was without any reason, perhaps such an order would be sought to be challenged on the ground of being arbitrary, the Bench said.

"Therefore, normally services of an employee on probation would be terminated, when he is found not suitable for the job for which he was engaged, without assigning any reason," it said.

Giving reasons for such a view, the bench said, "If the order on the face of it states that his services are being terminated because his performance was not satisfactory, the employer runs the risk of the allegation being made that the order itself casts a stigma."

However, the apex court was quick to clarify that, "We do not say that such a contention will succeed. Normally, therefore, it is preferred that the order itself does not mention the reason why the services are being terminated."

If an order not mentioning the reason of termination of job of a probationer was challenged, the employer would have to indicate the grounds on which the services of a probationer were terminated, the bench said.

"Mere fact that in response to the challenge, if the employer states that the services were not satisfactory would not ipso facto mean that the services of the probationer were being terminated by way of punishment," the Court said.

The probationer was on test and if the services were found not to be satisfactory, the employer has, in terms of the letter of appointment, the right to terminate the services, it said.

This ruling came in a case where Krishnadevaraya Education Trust had challenged the Educational Tribunal order, upheld by the High Court, which had said that it was a punishment if the job of a probationer was terminated on the ground that his services were unsuitable.

The Bench, setting aside both the Tribunal and High Court order, said "that reason cannot be cited and relied upon by contending that the termination was by way of punishment."