Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
BHARGAV D. KARIA, J.
UPENDRA KUMAR BASUDEV PANDIT - Appellant
Versus
DAKSHIN GUJARAT VIJ COMPANY LIMITED & others - Respondent
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20864 of 2017
Decided On : 03-09-2021
Constitution of India,1950 – Article 227 - Appointment - Stigmatic termination - Petitioner was appointed on post of Vidhyut Sahayak (Junior Engineer) as per appointment letter issued by respondent Chief Engineer (O&M) - Petitioner was appointed for a period of two years from the date of joining - As per clause 4 of appointment letter performance of petitioner was to be observed for a period of six months and on basis of performance, further continuation on post of Vidhyut Sahayak for remaining tenure of one and half year was to be decided and if performance was not found satisfactory in first six months, appointment of the petitioner would be discontinued without notice - Clause 5 of appointment letter specified that on completion of two years, performance would be assessed for consideration to post Junior Engineer - If the petitioner was not to be found fit for regular appointment, his service would come to an end - Petitioner commenced his service at Valod Sub Division Office for first five months from date of his appointment and no complaint or any memo or caution letter with respect to his service was issued to him for said period - Whether in a given case where order of termination is not a simple order of termination, words used in order can be said to contain a `stigma'.
Finding of the court: Office Order passed by respondent cannot be said to be a stigmatic order as said order was never given to the petitioner and was passed after petitioner was relieved from service by order – Order only states that petitioner along with three other Vidhyut Shayahaks working under Surat Rural Circle who have completed their contractual engagement period of two years were relieved from respondent company from date as shown against their name - Accordingly, petitioner was relieved from service - Grievance raised by the petitioner, that his services were terminated by order on account of adverse remarks resulting into stigmatic termination order, is not borne out from the record - By order passed by respondent it was only considered as to why performance of petitioner was not found satisfactory pursuant to the adverse remarks from his confidential report for year in the appeal preferred by the petitioner - In view of facts reliance placed by the petitioner on decision of Apex Court in case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra) as well as Anakbhai Bachubhai Gida (supra) are not applicable in the facts of the case as there is no termination order but only a relieve order is passed by the respondents on completion of the contractual engagement period of two years.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. By this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:
B. Pending admission, hearing and disposal of the petition, the Hon’ble Court be pleased to stay the operation, implementation and execution of the order impugned dated 01.02.2014 passed by the respondent no.1 and order dated 04.03.2014 passed by the respondent No.2 vide which the services of the petitioner were terminated.
C. Be pleased to grant urgent ex-parte ad interim relief in terms of para 8(A) and 8(B)above.
D. The Hon’ble Court may be pleased to grant such other and further releif’s as deemed just and proper by this Hon’ble Court in the interest of justice.”
2. Brief facts of the case are as under:
2.2 The petitioner was appointed for a period of two years from the date of joining. As per clause 4 of the appointment letter the performance of the petitioner was to be observed for a period of six months and on the basis of the performance, further continuation on the post of Vidhyut Sahayak for the remaining tenure of one and half year was to be decided and if the performance was not found satisfactory in the first six months, the appointment of the petitioner would be discontinued without notice.
2.3 Clause 5 of the appointment letter specified that on completion of two years, the performance would be assessed for consideration to the post Junior Engineer. If the petitioner was not to be found fit for regular appointment, his service would come to an end.
2.4 The petitioner commenced his service at Valod Sub Division Office for the first five months from the date of his appointment and no complaint or any memo or caution letter with respect to his service was issued to him for the said period.
2.5 On having found the work of the petitioner satisfactory in the first six months, his services were continued as per clause 4 of the appointment letter. Thereafter, the petitioner was transferred to Dolvan Sub Division Office from July 2012 and his work was found satisfactory even at Dolvan Sub Division Office till December, 2012.
2.6 It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent No.4-Deputy Engineer (O & M) was appointed at the Valod Sub-division Office in January 2013. The petitioner started receiving memos and caution letters for negligence and dissatisfactory work. First such memo dated 07.01.2013 was replied by the petitioner on 09.01.2013 explaining that there was no negligence or carelessness on his part and he was discharging his duties in the best possible manner.
2.7 According to the petitioner, respondent No.4 was prejudiced towards the petitioner and deliberately tried to harass the petitioner and therefore, on 18.01.2013, another memo was issued to the petitioner for not learning Gujarati Language. The petitioner, by reply dated 25.01.2013, contended that he could understand and read Gujarati and ensured to take Gujarati tuition and classes to speak and write Gujarati.
2.8 According to the petitioner, due to the grudge towards the petitioner, the respondent No.4 issued numerous memos every fortnight which were replied by the petitioner initially. The petitioner was served with an extract of the confidential report of his services on his work which contained adverse remarks on his work capacity and eligibility along with the memo dated 18.01.2014 so as to give an opportunity for improvement. It was
SupremeToday
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
