Back
2019 Supreme(Cal) 760
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT CALCUTTA
SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY, JJ.
Dr. Arup Kumar Bhaumik - Appellant
Versus
The State of West Bengal & Others - Respondent
M.A.T. No. 258 of 2019 with C.A.N. Nos. 1953, 2300 of 2019 & C.O.T. Nos. 42 & 44 of 2019
Decided On : 01-11-2019
For the Appellant :L.K. Gupta, Senior Advocate, Ranajit Chatterjee, Prasenjit De, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Jayanta Mitra, Senior Advocate, Biplab Ranjan Bose, Sreyashi Chatterjee, Souvik Nandy, Saptangshu Basu, Senior Advocate, Ranjan Kali, Advocates.
The termination order must not create any stigma for the rest of the appellant's career.
Headnote:
Termination - Probationary Period - Stigmatic Comments - [TERMINATION] - [EMPLOYMENT LAW] - [Clause 7 of Chapter III of Service Rules of RCC, Dipti Prakash Banerjee -versus- Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences (1999) 3 SCC 60, Chandu Lal’s case (1985) 2 SCC 727, Mathew P. Thomas (2003) 3 SCC 263, Pavanendra Narayan Verma (2002) 1 Supreme Court Cases 520, SBI -versus- Palak Modi (2013) 3 Supreme Court Cases 607, Allahabad Bank Officer’s Association -versus- Allahabad Bank (1996) 4 Supreme Court Cases 504, Abhijit Gupta versus S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences and others (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 469, Union of India and other -versus- R.S. Dhaba (1969) 3 Supreme Court Cases 603] - The appellant, a Principal, challenged the termination of his service during his extended probation period. The termination letter contained stigmatic comments without any basis, leading to the court's decision to set aside the termination order and direct the employer to reinstate the appellant without back wages. The court emphasized that the termination order must not create any stigma for the rest of the appellant's career.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Principal, challenged the termination of his service during his extended probation period. The termination letter contained stigmatic comments without any basis, leading to the court's decision to set aside the termination order and direct the employer to reinstate the appellant without back wages.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination order contained stigmatic comments without any basis, leading to the decision to set aside the termination order and direct the employer to reinstate the appellant without back wages.
Issues: The issues included the validity of the termination order, the presence of stigmatic comments without basis, and the reinstatement of the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination order must not create any stigma for the rest of the appellant's career and directed the employer to reinstate the appellant without back wages.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the termination order, and directed the employer to reinstate the appellant without back wages.
JUDGMENT :
ABHIJIT GANGOPADHYAY, J.
1. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 1st February, 2019 passed in a writ application being W.P. No. 3691 (W) of 2017. The grievance of the appellant is that the writ court has committed error, inter alia, in not passing an order of reinstatement of the appellant even after holding that the termination order dated 2nd February, 2017 was a stigma.
The appellant has submitted that the said order is ex facie stigmatic and contain grave allegations against the appellant, thereby affecting his status in the society at large and future employment prospects. The charges and imputations contain in the said letter, forming the foundation of the order, are grave and serious in nature and accordingly, such an order could not have been lawfully passed without issuing a show cause and holding a full-fledged enquiry against the appellant (notwithstanding the fact that he was on probation) – which was not done by the Respondent authority.
It has further been submitted by the appellant that no correspondence had ever been addressed by the management of the Respondent College to the appellant even remotely mentioning such grave charges. It is further submitted that mere direction of deletion of the stigmatic portion of the termination letter as passed by the writ Court is incorrect.
It is the further submission of the appellant that the impugned termination order is to be set aside in its entirety and a direction of reinstatement in service of the appellant with arrear salary should be passed.
2. The appellant filed the writ application challenging the termination of his service by termination letter dated 2nd February, 2017 issued to him by his employer RCC Institute of Information Technology (RCC, in short, hereafter) during his extended probation period. The appellant joined RCC as the Principal on 26th August, 2015.
On exchange of affidavits by and amongst the parties including the added respondent (who was appointed as Principal of the said College after termination of the petitioner) the Hon’ble Court was pleased to pass the impugned judgment and order, effective portion of which is as follows:
“Petitioner is entitled to declaration that the second sentence being, “you have failed to behave upon the expected standard of conduct which has given rise to a situation involving a loss of confidence on you” is stigmatic. There will be a direction for deleting said sentence in impugned letter as deemed to have been deleted”.
3. In the appointment letter issued to the appellant it was mentioned that he would be in probation for a minimum period of one year from the date of his joining and will be absorbed on regular basis on satisfactory completion of the probationary period.
4. The Chairman of the Board of Governor of RCC (Chairman, in short, hereafter) by a letter dated 24th August, 2016 extended the probationary period of the appellant by six months. In the said letter of extension of the probationary period absolutely nothing was mentioned as to dissatisfaction of RCC regarding the deficiency in performance of the petitioner for the last one year of his job as Principal of RCC.
5. On behalf of the appellant a letter dated 24th January, 2017 was issued by his lawyer to RCC pointing out clause No. 7 of chapter III of condition of service of Service Rules of RCC specifying that the probationary period was extendable by a maximum period of one year in case of unsatisfactory performance which was totally absent in the said letter of extension of probation. In the said letter on behalf of the appellant some specific objections were also raised in respect of a meeting of the Board of Management of RCC (BOM, in short) dated 18th January, 2017 wherein the appellant was not allowed to participate in the meeting for the full time of the meeting despite the appellant was the de jure member Secretary of the BOM. The Chairman by his letter dated 31st January, 2017 gave a reply to the said letter on be
