A.S. SUPEHIA, J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 13.10.2014, passed in Special Civil Application No.13924 of 2014 by the learned Single Judge, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging his termination has been rejected.

2. The brief facts leading to filling of the present appeal are as under:

2.1 The appellant was appointed as an Assistant Professor on 12.10.2011 for a period of two years probation after undergoing the regular selection procedure.

2.2 On 30.08.2013, the appellant was served with a communication calling upon him to fill up the inquiry report annexed with the same before 02.09.2013.

2.3 The appellant by the letter dated 04.09.2013, tendered his reply to the aforesaid communication dated 30.08.2018.

2.4 Thereafter, by the impugned order dated 10.09.2013, the respondent-University terminated the services of the appellant. It is the case of the appellant that the action of the respondent authorities terminating his services on the basis of the resolution passed by the respondent-University being Resolution No.46 is stigmatic in nature and the same is passed without holding a regular departmental inquiry.

2.5 Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellant filed the captioned writ petition, which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

3. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge is erroneous since the vital aspect i.e. the foundation of the termination order is not appreciated in true perspective. He has submitted that the termination of the appellant is stigmatic in nature since the respondent-University has placed reliance upon the resolution dated 10.09.2013, which spells out the reasons of termination. He has submitted that all the reasons as stated in the resolution are stigmatic in nature.

4. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the termination of the appellant is in breach of Regulation 67(1) read with provision of Regulation 4(b) of Ordinance 147(4) and 144(3). He has submitted that as per the said provisions an employee cannot be dismissed on the ground of misconduct without issuance of charge-sheet or without holding a regular department inquiry.

5. Learned advocate for the appellant has also submitted that no documents were provided to the appellant and the report relied upon by the committee was also not supplied to the appellant. Thus, he has submitted that the order dated 10.09.2013 is not simpliciter order of non-confirmation of the probation, but the same is punitive in nature which casts stigma on the appellant and hence, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside.

6. Learned advocate for the appellant has submitted that the respondent authorities had terminated the services of the appellant as a retaliatory measure since he had filed the writ petition being Special Civil Application No.11 of 2013 against the respondent-University.

7. In support of his submissions, Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the appellant has placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of State Bank of India & Ors. Vs. Palak Modi and Another, (2013) 3 S.C.C. 607 and in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary Vs. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar and Ors., AIR 2016 S.C 467.

8. Per Contra, Mr.Hriday Buch, learned advocate for the respondent authorities has placed reliance on the affidavit filed by the University and has submitted that the termination of the appellant is justified since the reply dated 04.09.2013 written by the present appellant to the respondent-University in response to the communications dated 30.08.2019 and 02.09.2013 reflects that the appellant has threatened the Chancellor, the Vice Chancellor and the Incharge Registrar of committing suicide, if any action is taken against him pursuant to the inquiry held against him.

8.1 Mr.Buch, learned advocate for the respondent authorities has submitted that in the present c