2010 Supreme(SC) 51

2010 (1) Supreme 86
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V.S. Sirpurkar and Dr. Mukundakam Sharma,JJ.
Chaitanya Prakash & Anr. — Appellants
versus
H. Omkarappa — Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 2786 of 2007
Decided on : 12-01-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
Even if an order of termination refers to unsatisfactory service of the person concerned, the same cannot be said to be stigmatic.

Headnote:Service Law – Respondent was offered an appointment to post of Executive Director [Marketing] by Appellant No. 2, by issuing an offer of appointment – Said offer of appointment was accompanied with terms and conditions of appointment, one of which was that the respondent was to undergo probation for a period of one year, which was extendable – Specific case of appellants that as performance of respondent was not found to be satisfactory during the period of probation his service was not confirmed and his probation was extended by another three months – Termination of services of respondent by appellant 2 on respondent failing to show concrete result during said period – Writ petition – Allowed by High Court holding that the order of termination passed by appellants against respondent was stigmatic, and therefore, said order could not have been given effect to without giving an opportunity to the respondent – Appeal – Held respondent was time and again informed during the probation period about his deficiencies and was given ample opportunities to improve them – Therefore, enough precautions were taken by the appellants to see that the respondent improved his performance and such an opportunity was provided to him – But such advices and opportunity were totally misplaced as the respondent considered the same as unnecessary encroachment and interference in his work and wrote back rudely in an intemperate language – Whether or not a person is suitable to be retained and confirmed in service could be considered and assessed by the Managing Director, namely, appellant no.1, but he after making an appraisal submitted his report along with all other records of the respondent before the Board of Directors, who finally took the decision – The Board of Directors constituted of responsible persons and they while deciding the suitability of the respondent not only considered the Performance Assessment Report but also considered all other records, and thereafter they took a considered and conscious decision that respondent was not suitable for confirmation and terminated his service – Reasons mentioned in the letter terminating services of respondent could not be said to be stigmatic – The appellant had time and again specifically brought to the notice of respondent his short comings and no misconduct as such was alleged against respondent by appellant – Hence held that present case was a case of termination simpliciter due to unsuitability of respondent and not a case of punishment for misconduct – Decision of High Court being erroneous and vitiated set aside-Appeal allowed. (Paras 20 to 23)

       Facts of the Case :

        Issue that fell for consideration in present appeal was whether the impugned order passed by the appellants against the respondent terminating his service during the period of probation was an order of termination simpliciter due to unsatisfactory service or “stigmatic” due to misconduct.

       Findings of the Court :

        Respondent was time and again informed during the probation period about his deficiencies and was given ample opportunities to improve them. Therefore, enough precautions were taken by the appellants to see that the respondent improved his performance and such an opportunity was provided to him.But such advices and opportunity were totally misplaced as the respondent considered the same as unnecessary encroachment and interference in his work and wrote back rudely in an intemperate language. Whether or not a person is suitable to be retained and confirmed in service could be considered and assessed by the Managing Director, namely, appellant no.1, but he after making an appraisal submitted his report along with all other records of the respondent before the Board of Directors, who finally took the decision. The Board of Directors constituted of responsible persons and they while deciding the suitability of the respondent not only considered the Performance Assessment Report but also considered all other records, and thereafter they took a considered and conscious decision that respondent was not suitable for confirmation and terminated his service. Reasons mentioned in the letter terminating services of respondent could not be said to be stigmatic. The appellant had time and again specifically brought to the notice of respondent his short comings and no misconduct as such was alleged against respondent by appellant .Hence held that present case was a case of termination simpliciter due to unsuitability of respondent and not a case of punishment for misconduct.Decision of High Court being erroneous and vitiated was set aside. Appeal was allowed.

       Result : Appeal allowed.