Important Point
Where the termination order used the words ‘loss of confidence’ the said orders were held to contain stigma and therefore punitive.

Headnote:Special Leave to Appeal-Constitution of India, 1950-Article 136-Appellate appointed as Office Superintendent on probation for one year-Termination of service as appellant’s work not satisfactory on several counts-Division Bench of Calcutta High Court affirmed order of Single Judge dismissing writ petition filed by appellant-Civil appeal-Termination of service of probation whether can be founded on misconduct-Allegations only motive-When order of termination of probationer said to contain express stigma-Employer if did not want to enquire into truth of allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or doubtful about securing adequate evidence-Allegations would be motive and not foundation and simple order of termination would be valid -words employed amount to stigma or not depends on facts and circumstances of each case and language or words employed in order of termination of probationer-Words amounting to stigma need not be contained in order or proceeding referred to in order to termination-Would vitiate order of termination-Findings part of foundation of impugned order-Not case of mere motive-Finding of inquiry committee about scuffle and obtaining false signatures clearly in nature of stigma-Nothing objectionable in third letter but second letter objectionable - Impugned order liable to be set aside-Appellant entitled to reinstatement and backwages from date of termination and to continuity of service.
       Held : If findings were arrived at in inquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as ‘founded’ on the allegations and will be bad. But if the inquiry was not held, no finding were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an inquiry but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to inquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegations would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid. (Para 19)
       It depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the language or words employed in the order of termination of the probationer to Judge whether the words employed amount to stigma or not. Point 2 is decided accordingly. (Para 29)
       The words amouting to ‘stigma’ need not be contained in the order of termination but may also be contained in an order or proceeding referred to in the order of termination or in an annexure thereto and would vitiate the order of termination. (Pata 36)
       The above language in the letter dated 11.12.95 would clearly imply that this was not a case of any preliminary findings. If these were referred to as mere allegations, it would have been a case of motive. But as these definitive conclusions of misconduct are evident on the face of this letter dated 11.12.95 and this letter falls within the “whole period”, the conclusion is inescapable that these findings were part of the foundation of the impugned order and it is not a case of mere motive. On this ground, the order requires to be set aside. (Para 39)
       The appeal is allowed, the Judgments of the Division Bench & learned Single Judge of the High Court are set aside, the impugned order of termination is quashed, and the appellant is hereby directed to be reinstated with backwages till the date of reinstatement and continuity of service. It will be open to the respondents to take such action as they may deem fit in accordance with law against the appellant. (Para 46)

Judgment

M. Jagannadha Rao, J.-Leave granted.

This Civil Appeal has been filed by the appellant questioning the correctness of the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in M.A.T. No. 1690 of 1997 dated 23.4.1998. By that judgment, the Division Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 15.5.1997 in W.P. No. 8484(W) of 1997 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant, a probationer and refusing to quash the order dated 30.4.1997, terminating his probation.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as follows:

3. The appellant was appointed on 11.1.1995 as Office Superintendent in the respondent organisation, namely, Sri Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta. The order of appointment dated 11.1.1995 stated that the appellant would be on probation for one year and that he might be confirmed after one year provided the administration was satisfied with the quality of the appellant’s service. His pay scale was to be in the scale of Rs. 1400-1600-2300-2600 with allowances. The appellant joined on 2.5.1995. As we are concerned with the question of validity of the appellant’s termination of probation, it is necessary to refer to the events that took place during the period of probation.

4. On 11.12.1995, the Director of the respondent organisation informed the appellant that the appellant’s work was not satisfactory on several counts. The points mentioned in this letter are as follows:-

“(i) Your handling of the movement to the new campus was good till the good impression was spoiled by your refusal to handle the furniture in the Director’s room and your statements about other administrative staff members, which were not corroborated by academic members present. Later movement to the JD Block by Prof. A. Mookerjee and the Director’s office found you non-cooperative.

(ii) You have been preparing false bills; the fact that they were passed by your immediate superior does not mitigate your guilt.

(iii) Your handling of quotations about cleaning agencies, xerox machines, purchases of stationery etc. were faulty and several times you were told to redo the whole job. Unfortunately your performance has not improved even after repeated advice.

(iv) You have misbehaved with women academic staff members; one of them has even submitted a written complaint.

(v) You are rather frequently absent from office premises and the faculty members complained about your absence. Your handling of the room allocations in the guest house, confirmatory reply to people asking for accomodation, and general supervision have been unsatisfactory, In general your attitude to office work leaves much to be desired.

It is expected that you would rectify the faults noted above and improve your performance in the coming months, so that your confirmation could be favourably considered.”

On 30.4.1996, the appellant was informed that he was on probation and his confirmation would be considered soon. On 15.4.1996, the Director wrote another letter stating as follows:

“1. It appears that your attitude concerning the guests for the guest house has not shown any improvement. When Dr. R. Bhat fell sick with chicken pox and was in quarantine for three weeks, you were nowhere to be seen, and the A.O. was also not seen to take any interest, similarly when a Canadian professor (Professor Dragland) fell sick, you were not to be found.

Most of the time, you left the work to be done by others, who had to do extra work for your inefficiency.

2. You have not done a proper job of releasing the houses at DB 17 and CD 85. It is known that the date 31.1.1986 is not the actual date of release of DB 17 and the landlord showed us proof that this was so.

3. You have not explained how the revenue stock verification was done by you and the A.O.

Please refer to SNB/DIR/ADM/95-96/84 dated 20.2.1996 about stock verification (especially numbering and locating new furniture). Has any progress been made? No activity on this important job has been noticed by me.

Pleas

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1999 Supreme(SC) 169

Important PointWhere the termination order used the words ‘loss of confidence’ the said orders were held to contain stigma and therefore punitive.

Cases Referred (26)

Important Point
Where the termination order used the words ‘loss of confidence’ the said orders were held to contain stigma and therefore punitive.