The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between stigmatic termination and termination based on unsatisfactory work, emphasizing the adverse consequences of a stigmatic termination on future job prospects.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The order by which, while still on probation, appellant’s service was terminated reads as under:-

“No.HR/PF/S-325/2012-100907 September 11, 2012

To

Mr. S.P.Sharma,

Vice President

IFCI Ltd.

IFCI Tower,

61, Nehru Place,

New Delhi-110019

Subject: Termination

Owing to the lapses committed by you in the handling of the Jupiter Bioscience Ltd. case, the Competent Authority has decided to terminate your contract of employment with immediate effect. The payment of dues including the Notice Pay will be settled in due course.

(Michael Mili)

Sr. Associate Vice President

Human Resources”

2. Two issues were raised by the appellant before the learned Single Judge. The first pertaining to his deemed confirmation. The second pertaining to the language of the order/letter terminating his service; and the issue was whether on the face of the letter the termination is stigmatic and since it was not preceded by any inquiry, the termination was illegal.

3. The appellant has lost on both counts before the learned Single Judge, and in respect of the second issue decided concerning whether the letter terminating appellant’s service is stigmatic, we find a contradiction in the impugned decision wherein after holding that the termination order is non-stigmatic the learned Single Judge has issued a direction that a fresh order of termination simplictor would be issued to the appellant.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant, though in the appeal grounds have been urged regarding appellant’s contention of deemed confirmation, gives up said grounds and restricts argument in the appeal to whether the language of the letter/order terminating appellant’s services casts a stigma.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents wants to cite judgments where Courts have strived to draw a distinction between past acts of misdemeanours constituting the motive or the foundation to an order of terminating the services of a probationer in the context of the argument advanced that though the order on its face is non-stigmatic, the actual reason for service being terminated is a finding of guilt for a misdemeanour allegedly committed. We are not noting said decision because in the instant case the only issue which arises is whether the letter terminating the service of the appellant is stigmatic.

6. The letter gives the reason for terminating the service of the appellant, and we note the language of the reason : ‘owing to the lapses committed by you in the handling of the Jupiter Bioscience Ltd. case’.

7. Is an allegation of committing lapses, as the reason for terminating the services, one which casts a stigma?

8. We need not list the decisions which give the reason why an order terminating the service of a probationer, if stigmatic, is a penal order. We simply note that the legal principle is that where the order affects the reputation of the employee it would hinder future prospects of a job and therefore would be penal. A stigma is a mark of disgrace and hence stigmatic would mean ‘of or relating to a stigma’.

9. Law treats reputation as a property. Law also treats reputation as an honour and if understood as an honour it signifies the estimation which a person receives from society. Reputation is also treated in law as dignity for the reason a person’s dignity depends on whether others in the community give him the deference that is his desert as a full member of the society.

10. An imputation which disparages a person in his profession, calling, trade or business is bound to be stigmatic, and therefore any imputation which is disparaging in the way of a person’s occupation would be stigmatic.

11. The test whether an imputation against a person is disparaging/stigmatic would be : whether the words used tend to lower the person in the estimation of right thinking members of the society. In the context of defamation/liable in the decision reported as (1970) 1 ALLER 1094 Drummond-Jackson Vs. British Medical Association, imputation of incompet