R. P. SETHI, C. J.

( 1 ) THE ordinary dictionary meanings of the word 'stigma' are:"mark branded on slave, criminal etc. ; imputation attaching to person's reputation; stain on one's good name"it is also considered as:"a brand; a mark of infamy; a disgrace or reproach attached to anyone; any special mark; a spot; a bleeding spot; a scar; a spot sensitive to light".

( 2 ) IN relation to employment, the word 'stigma' meansas persion or reflection on the conduct, efficiency and the like made in the order which is likely to adversely affect the future prospects of the individual relating to his employment or promotion.

( 3 ) IN the absence of any statutory definition assigned, the Supreme Court considered its scope and ambit in Kamal Kishore lqkshman v Management of M/s. Pan American World Airways inc. and Others at paras 8 and 9 and relying upon its earlier judgments in Chandu Lai v Management of M/s. Pan American world Airways Inc. and Others and Jagdish Mitter v Union of india, held:"according to Webster's New World Dictionary it is something that detracts from the character or reputation of a person, a mark, sign etc. , indicating that something is not considered normal or standard. The Legal Thesaurus by burton gives the meaning of the word to be blemish, defect, disgrace, disrepute, imputation, mark of disgrace or shame. The Webster's IIIrd New International Dictionary gives the meaning as a mark or label indicating a deviation from a norm. According to yet another dictionary, 'stigma' is a matter for moral reproach. Loss of confidence by the employer in the employee is a feature which certainly affects the character or reputation of the employee and, therefore, this Court correctly held in chandu Lai's case, supra, that allegation of loss of confidence amounted to a stigma. The ratio in the case of jagdish Mitter, supra, also supports this conclusion".

( 4 ) INVOKING the mandate of the Apex Court, the appellant here in has prayed for quashing of the order of the Managing director of the respondent, dated 31-3-1994 at Annexure-G attached with the appeal, discharging him from service, alleging that the said order amounted to casting stigma to his service career.

( 5 ) IN order to appreciate the contentions raised in the appeal, it is necessary to take note of the facts under which the present appeal has been filed.

( 6 ) THE appellant was appointed as Assistant Sales Officer on 11-9-1987, vide order at Annexure-A. He claims to have underwent orientation training for two weeks and thereafter assumed the charge of Assistant Sales Officer and incharge of factory showroom at Mysore. During 1989, the appellant was transferred as Assistant Sales Officer, in-charge of the corporation showroom at Channapatna, where he served for about six months. He was placed under suspension there. After his reinstatement with effect from 4-1-1992, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Sales Officer in Devatha Market showroom of the respondent-Corporation at Bangalore. According to the terms of the appointment, the appellant was to undergo probation for three years, subject to the right of the respondent to extend such probation for further period. The respondent did not extend the period of probation before the expiry of three years and the appellant was allowed to continue in service without any break. However, on 1-10-1993, the respondent issued an order, indicating that the work rendered by the appellant had not been satisfactory and his probation was, therefore, extended up to 31-3-1994. On 6-12-1993, the appellant claims to have received a show-cause notice from the respondent, alleging that he was responsible for shortages of silk cloth. He was asked to show-cause as to why disciplinary action be not initiated against him, under the rules of the Corporation. The appellant denied the allegations and submitted that there was no shortage or missing of cut pieces, nor had there been any replacement, as alleged. On 31-3-1994, at about 3. 45 p.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document