Nimesh Labubhai Poojara v. Life Insurance Cororation Of India And ORS

1 84 wp 8943-16=.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 8943 OF 2016 Nimesh Labubhai Poojara

...Petitioner

Versus

Life Insurance Corporation of India and Ors.

...Respondent

**** Mr. Shantanu Shimpi i/b Akshay Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mr. Ajay Khaire for the Respondent/LIC.

**** SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN by SNEHA NITIN CHAVAN Date: 2024.01.08 18:18:06 +0530 CORAM : NITIN JAMDAR AND M.M.SATHAYE, JJ.

DATE : 5 JANUARY 2024 P.C. :

.

Heard learned counsel for the Parties.

2.

The Petitioner was appointed in the cadre of Assistant Administrative Officer on probation on 1 January 2014 for a period of one year. Thereafter, his probation period was extended for a period of six months from 31 December 2014, the Petitioner's services were discontinued by order dated 07 February 2015. Challenging this order, the Petitioner has filed this petition. 3.

The learned counsel for the Petitioner contended that impugned order is unreasonable and unilaterally passed without any Sneha Chavan

2 84 wp 8943-16=.doc opportunity given to the Petitioner and the order has resulted in serious financial hardship. The learned counsel for the Respondent pointed out that the order appointing Petitioner on probation itself contemplates that confirmation is subject to satisfactory service and the services can be dispensed with.

4.

The order discontinuing the Petitioner's services on probation does not contain reasons, since the Petitioner was on probation. Since, the Petitioner has put factum of his discontinuation on probation into issue by stating that there were no reasons, the Respondents have filed reply affidavit. The learned counsel for the Respondent points out from the communication of the Petitioner dated 08 December 2015 that this communication itself would show that Petitioner had taken leave of 80 days which was not sanctioned and was unauthorised. If that be the reason for non-continuation of Petitioner's probation, which has taken place in the year 2015, we do not find that there is any cause to interfere in the writ jurisdiction. 5.

Writ Petition is dismissed.

(M.M.SATHAYE, J.) (NITIN JAMDAR, J.) Sneha Chavan