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?

No. In the realm of service law, particularly if the employer is the State, regardless of how sweeping or absolute the contractual language appears, such discretion is not unchecked or unscreened. The discretion should be based on some material, and the Authority cannot form an opinion based on whims and fancies. The subjective satisfaction of the Authority must be rooted in objective facts, such as performance appraisals or specific assessments of the probationer's work, and it shall not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness.

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)

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.

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India