Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, ASHWIN D. BHOBE, JJ.
Sushil Kumar Srivastava – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.
1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.
2. On 1st September, 2023, this Court [Coram : Sunil B.Shukre and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla, JJ.] passed the following order :
1. At the request of the learned Counsel for the Respondent no.2 further time is granted to file reply.
2. The learned Counsel for the Respondent no.3 submits on instructions that no prayer has been made whatsoever against Respondent no.3 and Respondent no.3 has got nothing to do with this petition and therefore, she makes a prayer for deleting the name of Respondent no.3 from the array of Respondents.
3. On going through the memo of the petition, however, we find that there is some reference to the complaint of alleged misbehaviour with the wife of Chairman of GMR Group, which probably was the reason for unpleasant action which has been taken against the Petitioner and which is impugned in this petition. Had that been so, it would be necessary for Respondent no.3 to make things clear as to whether or not any complaint of misbehaviour whatsoever has been made by or on behalf of GMR Group against the Petitioner. The Respondent no.3 is at liberty to
Termination of a probationary employee requires a departmental inquiry if allegations of misconduct are made, and continued employment without formal disengagement results in deemed permanency.
Termination of a probationer based on misconduct requires a formal enquiry; failure to do so renders the termination stigmatic and punitive.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination based on the nature of the inquiry and the purpose of the termination.
Termination of a probationer must not cast stigma without due process; otherwise, it is deemed illegal and arbitrary.
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
