CWP-10493-1998 -1- 104 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-10493-1998 (O&M) DECIDED ON: 28.08.2025 SUMAN DUTT .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS STATE OF HARYANA .....RESPONDENT(S) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MOUDGIL Present: Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioner(s) Mr. Sushil Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** SANDEEP MOUDGIL, J (ORAL) 1. Prayer The jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction commanding the Respondents to reinstate the Petitioner to the post of Steno-Typist [Hindi] wherein she was working with the Department of Revenue untill her removal from service in gross violation of relevant rules including the Haryana Civil Service [Punishment & Appeal Rules] 1987. Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-10493-1998 -2- 2. Brief Facts:- The Petitioner was selected by the Subordinate Services Selection Board, Haryana, and appointed as Steno-Typist (Hindi) on 20.08.1993, with a probation period of two years. The appointment letter required the Petitioner to pass Departmental tests in English Typing and English Shorthand to avoid withholding increments. The Petitioner passed the English Typing test on 06.01.1994 but failed the English Shorthand test due to personal reasons. Consequently, her probation period was extended by one year, up to 20.08.1996. Despite the extended probation, the Petitioner was recognized for outstanding work and granted an honorarium on 27.09.1995, indicating satisfactory service. Upon failure to clear the English Shorthand test by 20.08.1996, the Petitioner was removed from service in November 1996. The Petitioner appealed, and the termination order was set aside by the Financial Commissioner on 01.01.1997 (Annexure P-5), leading to her reinstatement. The Petitioner again failed the English Shorthand test in April 1997. Although initially assured of further opportunities, she was later denied the chance to appear in the August 1997 test and was served a termination order dated 02.09.1997. The Petitioner appealed to the Revenue Minister in November 1997, but the grievance committee did not grant relief. On 30.04.1998 (Annexure P-6), the Government informed the Petitioner that no further relief would be granted. 3. Contentions On behalf of the petitioner Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the the sole reason for termination of the petitioner was failure to pass the English Shorthand test. He further submits that the petitioner consistently rendered satisfactory service, as evidenced by official acknowledgments. He argued that the Haryana Civil Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-10493-1998 -3- Services (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1987 classify removal as a major penalty, requiring due procedure, which was not followed as the respondents failed to provide an opportunity of hearing and did not issue any charge-sheet prior to termination, violating principles of natural justice and procedural requirements under the said Rules. He contends that the English Shorthand proficiency is not an essential qualification for the post of Hindi Steno-Typist, making termination on this ground unjustifiable. The appointment letter provided that failure to pass the shorthand test would result in withholding increments and extension of probation, but did not mention removal from service. The termination after the extended probation period, without following prescribed disciplinary procedures, renders the order illegal. On behalf of respondent/State Learned counsel for respondent vehemently contends that the petitioner was given five chances during her probation period (on 23-12-1993, 29- 6-1994, 31-8-1994, 5-1-1995, and 7-6-1995) to qualify the English Shorthand test but failed to do so and due to her failure to qualify within the stipulated probation period, her probation was extended by one year up to 20-8-1996 (Annexure R-8). He argued that during the extended probation period, the petitioner was granted four further chances (on 22-8-1995, 22-12-1995, 3-4-1996, and 19-8-1996) to clear the test, but she again failed to qualify and given her continuous failure to fulfill the essential qualification even during the extended probation, the petitioner’s performance was rightly adjudged unsatisfactory, warranting termination of her services with immediate effect by order dated 31-10-1996 (Annexure P-2). The respondents acted in accordance with the rules and conditions explicitly communicated to the petitioner at the time of appointment, Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-10493-1998 -4- and her termination was legally valid due to non-fulfillment of essential qualifications despite ample opportunities. He therefore submits that the claim of the petitioner lacks merit and is liable to be dismissed as she failed to satisfy the essential eligibility criteria for continuation in service. Heard, learned counsel for the respective parties. 4. Analysis It is evident that the petitioner was appointed as a Hindi Steno-Typist as a special case despite lacking the prescribed qualification of proficiency in English Shorthand. The terms of her appointment letter (Annexure P-1) clearly stipulated the requirement to pass the departmental English Shorthand test within a specified number of attempts, failing which her increments would be withheld, probation extended, and further action could be initiated. The petitioner was granted multiple opportunities i.e. five chances during the initial probation period and four more during the extended probation period to qualify in the English Shorthand test but she failed to do so on all occasions. Her continued failure to meet this essential qualification rendered her performance unsatisfactory, justifying the extension of probation and ultimately the termination of her services. Furthermore, the respondents have acted in strict accordance with the applicable rules, including the Punjab Financial Commissioners Office (State Service Class-III) Rules, 1957, and the conditions expressly communicated to the petitioner at the time of appointment. The termination order dated 31-10-1996 was issued after due consideration and was legally valid and justified. The petitioner’s contention that the English Shorthand test was not an essential qualification and that due procedure was not followed does not hold Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:41 I agree to specified portions of this document CWP-10493-1998 -5- good, as the conditions of service, probation extension, and consequences of failure to qualify were clearly laid out and agreed upon in the appointment letter (Annexure P-1) issued to the petitioner. The procedural requirements under the relevant rules have been complied with, and the termination does not suffer from any procedural irregularity. Moreover, even under general law, the service of a probationer can be terminated after making overall assessment of his performance during the period of probation and no notice is required to be given before termination of such service. This aspect has been examined by the Supreme Court in the case of “The Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial Institute of Oncology, Bangalore v. Dr. Pandurang Godwalkar, AIR 1993 Supreme Court 392 : 1993(1) SCT 267(SC)”, where it has been pointed out that if the performance of the employee concerned during the period of probation is not found to be satisfactory on overall assessment, then it is open to the competent authority to terminate his service. In the light of above, the present petition is hereby dismissed. Pending application(s), if any shall disposed off, accordingly. (SANDEEP MOUDGIL) 28.08.2025 JUDGE anuradha Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No Anuradha 2025.09.25 23:41 I agree to specified portions of this document