Appeal:
Petitioner:
Respondent:
Apeal:
Judges: M. JAGANNADHA RAO & D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Oct 02, 1999
Head Note:
Articles 14, 226 – Termination of probationer – Simple order – During first year of probation, employee served with letter about his misconduct – Probation extended twice for six months – Subsequent letter referring to performance and conduct during “whole” period – First letter mentioning “conclusive” conduct – Order of termination mentioning all three letters – In one case inquiry committee also gave report against employee – No regular departmental enquiry – Held that termination order was based on “foundation” and not on “motive”. It had a “stigma” and hence, is liable to be set-aside. Case law discussed.
Held:
The letter dated 11.12.95 does not merely say that there are such complaints against the appellant but it says conclusively that the appellant had “prepared false” bills and “misbehaved” with women academic staff members. As 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. (Paras 39, 40)
The words used in connection with the finding of the Inquiry Committee about the scuffle and about the appellant obtaining false signatures, are, clearly in the nature of a stigma. Fur-ther, the Inquiry Committee said he must be ‘punished’. It did not say that proceedings for disciplinary action were to be initiated. Thus on the ground of ‘stigma’ also the impugned order is liable to be set aside. (Para 41)
Findings arrived at by such an informal Committee against the appellant, which Committee was, in fact, constituted on a com-plaint by the appellant cannot be used for terminating the appel-lant’s probation, without a proper departmental inquiry. The said findings, were the foundation for the impugned order among other facts. Such findings must, in law, be arrived at only in a regular departmental inquiry. (Para 42)
JUDGEMENT: