Indefinite Probation Extension Beyond Regulatory Limits Invalid; Bombay HC Reinforces Procedural Safeguards
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice M.M. Sathaye ruled that Mumbai Port Authority's (MbPA) termination of a Chief Law Officer's probation based on an internal inquiry report without due process was stigmatic and unjustified. The Court found that the indefinite extension of probation violated the Mumbai Port Trust Employees Regulations,...
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench comprising Justice Ravindra V. Ghuge and Justice M.M. Sathaye ruled that Mumbai Port Authority's (MbPA) termination of a Chief Law Officer's probation based on an internal inquiry report without due process was stigmatic and unjustified. The Court found that the indefinite extension of probation violated the Mumbai Port Trust Employees Regulations, 2010, which caps probation at three years. The termination order, which alleged fraudulent behavior in securing the position, was deemed stigmatic as it relied on inquiry findings without affording proper procedural safeguards. The Court ordered reinstatement with full back wages, emphasizing that probation terminations implying misconduct require full procedural safeguards.
Background
Suruchi Rajendra Gurjar was appointed as a Senior Legal Manager at MbPA in 2016 and promoted to Chief Law Officer on 20-06-2019. As per her appointment letter, she was to serve a two-year probation period, with a possible extension if deemed necessary. On completing the initial probation period on 20-06-2021, her probation was extended indefinitely due to an ongoing disciplinary inquiry into her qualifications and experience. Subsequently, MbPA alleged that Gurjar had falsified her work experience to obtain the post, issuing a suspension order and extending her probation until further orders. This indefinite extension prompted her to file the current writ petition. The petitioner sought the quashing of her termination, claiming it was improperly based on the inquiry report, and her reinstatement with full back wages, arguing that the disciplinary process was intended to cast a stigma on her career by asserting misconduct without proper adjudication.
Arguments
Represented by Senior Advocate Mr. Anil Anturkar, the petitioner contended that firstly, the indefinite extension of her probation without cause contravened the rules set forth in the Mumbai Port Trust Employees (Recruitment, Seniority and Promotion) Regulations, 2010 (2010 Regulations), which allow extensions of up to one year, subject to certain conditions. The termination order, based on an adverse inquiry report, essentially stigmatized her without affording her a formal adjudicative process. Secondly, the charges against her were issued just six months before her probation's scheduled completion and focused entirely on alleged misrepresentation of qualifications and experience, rather than her actual performance in the role. The order, therefore, created a “make-believe” picture of subpar work, intended solely to avoid a direct dismissal and thereby prevent her from exercising her rights as a confirmed employee.
Senior Advocate Mr. R.S. Pai, representing the MbPA, maintained that the petitioner's termination was legally sound and administrative in nature, citing the appointment order's probation clause, which granted MbPA the right to extend probation indefinitely if disciplinary inquiries were ongoing. MbPA insisted that her termination was devoid of stigma, solely reflecting her failure to meet essential qualifications disclosed during the probation period, which ultimately led to an unsatisfactory employment assessment. Furthermore, MbPA argued that since the petitioner was a probationer, she had no vested right to continued employment.
Court's Reasoning
Firstly, the court found the indefinite probation extension problematic, as Clause 19(2) of the 2010 Regulations cap probation at three years, even with ongoing disciplinary proceedings. Thus, the indefinite extension was beyond the regulatory authority of MbPA and suggested an improper motive. The court opined that probation cannot be extended in perpetuity under the guise of awaiting disciplinary outcomes.
Secondly, the court emphasized the significance of procedural fairness, noting that accusations of fraud, especially as referenced in the termination order's reliance on the inquiry report, warranted a formal disciplinary process. By terminating her probation under these conditions, MbPA effectively imposed a punishment without a due hearing, violating the petitioner's rights. Further, in reviewing Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, the court reaffirmed the principle that probation terminations implying misconduct necessitate full procedural safeguards. The court thus noted, that “the impugned order of termination is stigmatic and is wholly based upon the conclusions of the Enquiry Officer that the Petitioner is guilty of suppression of material information and for indulging in a fraudulent act of gaining employment”.
Lastly, the court also reinforced the principle of deemed confirmation, observing that MbPA's failure to communicate performance issues or suggestions for improvement to Gurjar during her probation violated standard employment practices. Thus, the writ petition was allowed, and the termination order was quashed. MbPA was directed to reinstate the petitioner with full back wages within 30 days.
Decided on: 23-10-2024
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 570
Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. Anil Anturkar, Ms. Kashish Chelani, and Mr. Sankalpa Rajpurohit
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R.S. Pai, Mr. Anand Pai, Mr. Rahul Jain, Ms. Khushboo Rupani, and Mr. Sharan Shetty