Supreme Court of India· 29 May 2026

Can an employer rely on an adverse memo that was never communicated to the probationer?

GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS

2026 INSC 589 · CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4814 OF 2017
Coram: Atul S. Chandurkar; J.K. Maheshwari

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow reg.16(3)(a) Vijaya Bank (Office…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

No. Where the employer has failed to demonstrate that the memo was ever communicated, the probationer is effectively deprived of an opportunity to put his defense, and any reliance placed on such an uncommunicated memo would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is well settled that uncommunicated adverse remarks or charges should not be read to the prejudice of an employee. Withholding constructive or adverse feedback also deprives the officer of a meaningful opportunity for improvement.

Headnote

Vijaya Bank (Officers') Regulations, 1982 — reg.16(3)(a) — Probation — Termination simpliciter — Stigmatic and disguised punitive termination — Motive and foundation — Uncommunicated adverse remarks — Principles of natural justice — Vijaya Bank (Officers') Regulations, 1982 — reg.16(3)(a) — Discretion to terminate a probationer — Limits — Held: The discretion of the Competent Authority to terminate a probationer is not absolute and unqualified. Where the employer is the State, however sweeping the contractual language, the discretion must be based on some material and rooted in objective facts, and shall not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness. (¶19, 20) Service law — Termination simpliciter — Disguised punitive termination — Held further: A distinction must be drawn between a routine non-stigmatic termination for unsuitability and a disguised punitive termination. Where the alleged misconduct is the motive as well as the foundation, the order cannot stand merely because it ostensibly cites unsatisfactory performance. (¶21, 41) Service law — Uncommunicated adverse remarks — Principles of natural justice — Held further: Reliance on a memo never communicated to the probationer violates the principles of natural justice; uncommunicated adverse remarks should not be read to his prejudice. Withholding adverse feedback denies a meaningful opportunity for improvement. (¶22, 36) Service law — Bypassing a formal disciplinary proceeding — Relief — Held further: Unsatisfactory performance may not be used as a disguise to bypass formal disciplinary proceeding. Fifty per cent backwages from termination to superannuation, with consequential benefits notionally. Appeal disposed of. (¶45, 46)

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 22We say so because, withholding constructive or adverse feedback deprives the concerned officer of a meaningful opportunity for improvement. The very object of placing an employee on probation is to ensure that before he attains the status of a confirmed regular employee, his performance, conduct, and suitability are tested adequately. Probation is not a mere formality but a structured period during which the authorities are enabled to assess whether the officer satisfactorily discharges the duties and responsibilities attached to the post. In other words, the scheme of probation is designed to judge the ability, efficiency, and overall fitness of the probationer, so that the employer may pass appropriate orders either confirming the appointment or otherwise, based on a fair appraisal of the probationer’s service. The probationary period is designed to be a time of learning and alignment. When critical feedback is withheld during such time, it not only sets the probationer for a potential failure, but also undermines the fairness of the evaluation process. More so, the reasons behind the termination of a probationer can prejudice his future employment prospects in case his termination is stigmatic. Adverse remarks akin to ‘lack of integrity’, ‘misconduct’ etc., should necessarily be communicated to him. A probationer’s entire service record assumes relevancy for deciding his suitability.

Paragraph 36Now, admittedly, the Bank has failed to demonstrate that aforesaid memo was ever communicated to Respondent No. 1, effectively depriving him of an opportunity to put his defense. Therefore, any reliance placed on this uncommunicated memo would amount to violation of the principles of natural justice. It is a well-settled that uncommunicated adverse remarks or charges should not be read to the prejudice of an employee. Consequently, the memo dated 31.10.2005 also contains no value in the eyes of law.

Acts & Sections

reg.16(3)(a) Vijaya Bank (Officers') Regulations, 1982reg.16 Vijaya Bank (Officers') Regulations, 1982

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of GENERAL MANAGER, BANK OF BARODA AND OTHERS v. ASHOK KUMAR SINGH AND OTHERS — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Whether the discretion of the Competent Authority to terminate a probationer under Regulation 16(3)(a) of the Vijaya Bank (Officers') Regulations, 1982 is absolute and unqualified?Can a probationer be terminated for unsatisfactory performance where the alleged misconduct was the real foundation of the decision?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Supreme Court of India. Corrections