9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Nature of the termination order (whether punitive or simpliciter). 2. Legality of the termination without a full-scale departmental inquiry. 3. Impact of the statements made in the counter affidavit on the nature of the termination order. Detailed Analysis: 1. Nature of the Termination Order: The appellant contended that the termination order was punitive and cast a stigma on him, which required a full-scale departmental inquiry. The termination order stated that the appellant's "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory," which the appellant argued was stigmatic. However, the court held that the language used in the termination order did not amount to a stigma. It was noted that the words used were similar to those in previous cases, such as Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, where such language was deemed non-stigmatic. The court concluded that the termination order was not ex-facie stigmatic and did not imply punishment. 2. Legality of the Termination Without a Full-Scale Departmental Inquiry: The appellant argued that the termination was based on allegations of misconduct, which necessitated a full-scale departmental inquiry. The respondents conducted a summary inquiry to assess the appellant's fitness for confirmation. The court examined whether the inquiry held prior to the termination turned the order into one of punishment. It referred to the tests established in Shamsher Singh v. State of Punjab, which include whether there was a full-scale formal inquiry, into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct, culminating in a finding of guilt. The court found that none of these factors were present in the appellant's case. The inquiry report found the appellant unable to meet the requirements for the post, and thus, the termination was upheld as non-punitive. 3. Impact of Statements in the Counter Affidavit: The appellant pointed to statements in the counter affidavit alleging that his integrity and honesty were doubtful, arguing that these statements indicated a punitive intent. The court referred to the principle established in Mohinder Singh Gill v. The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi, which states that the validity of an order must be judged by the reasons mentioned in the order itself and cannot be supplemented by statements in affidavits. Similarly, in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Kaushal Kumar Shukla, it was held that statements in a counter affidavit do not change the nature and character of the termination order. The court concluded that the statements in the counter affidavit did not render the termination order punitive. Conclusion: The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the termination order was not punitive, did not cast a stigma, and did not require a full-scale departmental inquiry. The statements in the counter affidavit did not affect the validity of the termination order. The appeal was dismissed without any order as to costs.
|
