Mr. T.P. Singh, Advocate v. LT GOVERNER AND ORS

2. The petitioner, upon selection, was appointed as Electronic Mechanic ^ on probation in the Delhi Metro Rail Corporation,('DMRC'), vide letter/offer of appointment dated 3.1.2014.

3. While on probation, the petitioner's services were terminated vide Office Order dated 20.10.2015, which reads as under: "DELHIMEfRO RAIL CORPORATIONLTD. 2017:DHC:8190-DB 0-. „ •'2^. No.DMRC/HR/O&M/13.997/2015 Dated: 20,10.2015 OFFICE ORDER NO.858/2015 In terms of Clause No.6 ofthe Terms and Conditions ofthe offer of appointment - issued vide DMRC's letter No. DMRC/O&M/HR/l/l2013/84802310 dated 03.01.2014, the services of Shri Rajneesh Kumar, Maintainer/E&M (Emp. No.13997) in the pay scale of Rs.8000-14140/- are hereby terminated during probation period with immediate effect. Shri Rajneesh Kumar, Maintainer/RS will cease to beDMRCemployee with effectfrom 21.10.2015".

4. The petitioner had challenged the said termination order in the aforesaid OA, which, by the impugned order, has been dismissed.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn our attention to the Annual Performance Assessment Report ('APAR') for the year 2014-2015, which records that the petitioner had poor health due to slip disk and, therefore, could not perform field work or train related maintenance,or repair activities. The petitioner could not lift any equipment and this had affected his overall performance. The petitioner submits that poor rtiedical condition is the reason and cause why his services have been terminated. Reliance isplaced on Section 47 ofthe The Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection Of Rights And Full Participation) Act, 1995 and the OM dated 25.2.2015 issued by the Ministry of Personnel, Public \ Grievances &Pensions, Department ofPersonnel &Training. 6: The Tribunal has not accepted the sai^contention for several reasons.

7. In particular, it may be noted that the competent authority, vide letter/note dated 18.2.2015, had referred to therefusal of thepetitioner to do <• assigned jobs For the sake of clarity, we would like to reproduce the said noting:- "DMRC/RS/SPD/Elex/2015-11 Dated 18.02.2015 NOTE Subject: Refusal ofAssignedjob bya staff With lots of reluctance, I am writing this letter toyou as afinal resort. This letter is regarding a formal complaint about a particular staff Mr. Rajneesh Kumar, Employee No.13997. Mr. Rajneesh works in the Lab under my supervision, andhas been an employee of the company for the past one year. The complaint against him is thathe isnon-responsive anddismissive inattitude. Initially he was trained & assigned the basic work related to repairing of DC lights & RAD cards, which he performed. But with the growth of time, when wide scope exposure of train and medium level of repairing was assigned to him, he told himself medially incapable due to "Slipped Disc" problem. He required assistance for holding & placing the equipments as he cannot sway, which was supported lot of times to him: Considering the various activities ofsection, in a long run, it seems impractical to engage one staff with him for such type of assistance. It kills the J' time ofotherassisting staffs &overall affects theirperformance. Asper his statement, he should begiven some light dutyjob. The same was considered due to his medication & assigned Him the sitting job, i.e., repairing of light weight equipments such as PIB/TNI/DIF/PAB Overhauling or Tail Light repairing. He adamantly reverted by denying to repair/overhaul PAB over PIB without any reason. Such a person cannotbe tolerated by theLab as section's requirement & responsibilities are wide enough to. bear such staff. For the proper functioning & optimal performance of Lab, Management is requested to lookjn the matter. Put upfor your kind consideratior^. Sd/-Garima Bhadauria ASE/RS/SPD. M/RS/SPD Sh. Rajneesh is instructed togive a 'show cause 'for the same, in writing latest by 20.02.2015 and submit to ASE/HR/SPD. ASE/HR/SPD toput up thereceivedreply. " A reading of the Note will indicate that the petitioner was given light duty sitting job, owing to his health condition. However, the petitioner refused to carry out even the assigned taskf.

8. This is not a case where the respondents were not conscious or were unconcerned about the ailment and medical condition. They gave due consideration to the same, for the petitioner was given light duty and sitting job.

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also shown to us the file noting dated 23.2.2015, which was possibly not filed before the Tribunal. However, a copy of the same is available 'with "the petitioner. This noting reads as under: "Reply submitted by Sh. Rajneesh nowhere indicates his incapability in maintenance of small equipments like PAB and other., as entrusted by his section-incharge. However, DMRC on ethical and professional grounds always helped the staff in his speedy recovery by assistance provided by his colleagues in lifting the heavy equipments and by not entrusting the stafffor any train borne jobs. Staff has not heed to advices from undersigned and his Section Incharge during verbal counselling and is adamant in doing a singlejob, which is not acceptable to DMRC and its works ethics. AM/Electrical may pi. initiate a negative D&AR case against the staff, ifthere is no signs ofimprovement in his working. Support to best possible extent by Section Incharge has already shown but the support is taken to his right by the staff. AM/Electrical maypi. see & do the needful. " The said noting indicates that the respondent DMRC, on ethical and I professional grounds, had helped the petitioner to ensure speedy recovery. i. I:}, the petitioner^d^^ any interestin the trainjob. The-petition^^, \ VEe y:.was adaniant on doing a single job. This was not, acceptable. The note had ^ stated that ifthere was no improvement iri his woi*king^riegative recording;,;/maybe made in the A '.. / '. 10; - Termination of service oii account'of sjclmess' Or ailment would be completely unaccep)table. At the'isanie time, an/employee, whether pn;,' probation pr otherwise,'must be dedicated and committed towards the tasks; a; and work assigned tohim. The two notes referred to:above reflect and shpw '; that the senior Pfficers were^^'^ and kindly disposed and the petitiorier was accordingly assigned light duty and sitting job.In spite oftheV,, warningletter issued in February, 2015, the petitioner continuedto remain, abrasive and disobedient; The Order of Termination from service ^during the; •: probation peripd was passed nearly eight months thereafter, on 20.10.2015.;; / !Thus, opportunity and chance was given to the petitioner to improv The \ ordei- of termination was not siiddeh, but after counsening, and waniings to,;; mdiorate, but without positive results. In the given facts, therefore, we lip disp as the,caiiseof termination. It Would be presumptuous to disbelieve and disregard the respondents' version in iHe present factual matrix and hold/that they had acted in a high handed and tyrannous manner. The respondents clearly did hot act in haste or hurry. The termination was on account of the inflexible and obstinate attitude, as well as the recalciti-ance and defiance,to do the' work assigned to him. 11.;We do" hot find any error in the impugned order of thpTribunal. The writ petition|s SANJIV KHANNA, J MARCH 21,2017/tp GHANDER SHEKHAR, J