JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Mr. P.S. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. H.D. Dangre, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2, Mrs. M.A. Barabde, learned Assistant Government Pleader for the respondent no.3 and Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman, learned counsel for the respondent no.4. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. The petition questions the judgment dated 04/03/2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in the appeal filed by the present petitioner under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 seeking to quash and set aside the notice of termination dated 12/07/2017 issued by the respondent no.2, thereby terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from 13/08/2017, which judgment dismisses the appeal filed by the present petitioner.

3. Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice of termination dated 12/07/2017 (pg.57) was stigmatic, as a result of which, the termination could not have been effected without conducting an enquiry, which was never done, on account of which the termination is bad in law. It is contended that the language of the order of termination dated 12/07/2017, though is claimed to be innocuous, however, since the order of termination refers to the earlier communications dated 07/11/2015; 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017, all of which reflect upon the management questioning the conduct of the petitioner, the termination was stigmatic. In support of his contention, he places reliance upon Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre For Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others, (1999) 3 SCC 60; Chandra Prakash Shahi Vs. State of U.P. and others (2000) 5 SCC 152; V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab and others (2000) 3 SCC 239 and Anoop Jaiswal Vs. Government of India and another AIR 1984 SC 636.

4. Mr. Dangre, learned counsel for the respondent nos.1 and 2 supports the impugned order contending that there is no stigma indicated from the language of the notice of termination dated 12/07/2017. The termination, according to him, was pure and simple on account of the performance of the petitioner in discharge of his duties having being found unsatisfactory. In reference to the communications referred to in the notice of termination, he submits that these were merely for the sake of bringing to the notice of the petitioner, the deficiencies observed by the management in the conduct of his work, with an intention to grant an opportunity to the petitioner for improvement. He submits that there is no finding of guilt or misconduct indicated by the language of the notice of termination dated 12/07/2017 and therefore the termination being simplicitor on account of expiry of the period of probation which had not been completed to the satisfaction of the respondent nos.1 and 2, the petitioner stood terminated on the date of completion of the period of probation and no fault could be found with the same. In support of his contention, he relies upon Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and another, (2002) 1 SCC 520, paras 19, 26,31 and 32; Mathew P. Thomas Vs. Kerala State Civil Supply Corpn. Ltd. and others (2003) 3 SCC 263, para 11 and 12; Abhijit Gupta Vs. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences and others (2006) 4 SCC 469, paras 4, 6 to 8 and 10; Chaitanya Prakash and another Vs. H. Omkarappa (2010) 2 SCC 623. Reliance is also placed upon Usha d/o Ramchandra Mule Vs. Presiding Officer, Additional School Tribunal and others 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 90 and Mohan Dagadu Nimbalkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and another, 2009 (3) MhLJ 732. He therefore submits that when the law has progressed to a stage where the Hon’ble Apex Court even in the case of Abhijit Gupta (supra), wherein though in earlier letters which were referred