Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sushind Kisan Rathod, was employed as a Peon at Rajashree Shahu Science College, Chandur Railway, which is run by respondent no.2, Atul Vidya Mandir. On 12/07/2017, the respondent no.2 issued a notice terminating the petitioner's services with effect from 13/08/2017. The termination notice referred to earlier communications dated 07/11/2015, 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017. The petitioner challenged the termination by filing an appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal by judgment dated 04/03/2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition. The petitioner contended that the termination order was stigmatic because it referred to prior communications that contained allegations of misconduct, and therefore, a disciplinary enquiry was required before termination, which was not conducted. The respondents argued that the termination was innocuous and based on unsatisfactory work. The court examined the termination notice and found that it expressly referred to earlier communications, which were show-cause notices or warnings regarding the petitioner's conduct. The court held that such reference made the termination stigmatic, and without a proper enquiry, the termination was invalid. The court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and the termination order, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, within four weeks.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination - Stigmatic Order - Termination order referring to prior communications alleging misconduct is stigmatic and requires disciplinary enquiry - The petitioner was terminated by a notice that referred to earlier communications dated 07/11/2015, 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017 which contained allegations of misconduct. The court held that such reference makes the termination stigmatic, and without an enquiry, the termination is bad in law. (Paras 3-5)
B) Service Law - Natural Justice - Enquiry Requirement - Termination without enquiry is invalid when order is stigmatic - The court held that since the termination order was stigmatic, the employer could not have terminated the petitioner without conducting a proper disciplinary enquiry. The failure to do so violated principles of natural justice. (Paras 3-5)
C) Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 - Section 81 - Appeal against termination - The petitioner had filed an appeal under Section 81 before the University and College Tribunal, which was dismissed. The High Court set aside the Tribunal's judgment and the termination order, directing reinstatement with continuity of service and 50% back wages. (Paras 2, 5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination order dated 12/07/2017 is stigmatic and thus required a disciplinary enquiry before termination, and whether the University and College Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the judgment of the University and College Tribunal dated 04/03/2019 and the termination notice dated 12/07/2017. The respondents were directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, within four weeks.
Law Points
- Stigmatic termination requires disciplinary enquiry
- Termination order referring to prior communications alleging misconduct is stigmatic
- Section 81 of Maharashtra Public Universities Act
- 2016 provides appeal against termination
- Principle of natural justice applies to termination of service
Case Details
2023 LawText (BOM) (08) 182
Writ Petition No. 2774/2019
Mr. P.S. Patil for petitioner, Mr. H.D. Dangre for respondent nos.1 and 2, Mrs. M.A. Barabde for respondent no.3, Mrs. Gauri Venkatraman for respondent no.4
Rajashree Shahu Science College, Atul Vidya Mandir, Joint Director of Higher Education, Sant Gadge Baba Amravati University
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition challenging the judgment of the University and College Tribunal dismissing the petitioner's appeal against termination of service.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought quashing of termination notice dated 12/07/2017 and reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was terminated from service as Peon by a notice that referred to prior communications alleging misconduct, without conducting a disciplinary enquiry.
Previous Decisions
The University and College Tribunal dismissed the petitioner's appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 by judgment dated 04/03/2019.
Issues
Whether the termination order dated 12/07/2017 is stigmatic and thus required a disciplinary enquiry before termination.
Whether the University and College Tribunal erred in dismissing the appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the termination notice referred to earlier communications dated 07/11/2015, 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017, which contained allegations of misconduct, making the termination stigmatic, and thus a disciplinary enquiry was required before termination, which was not conducted.
Respondents argued that the termination was innocuous and based on unsatisfactory work, and no enquiry was required.
Ratio Decidendi
A termination order that refers to prior communications containing allegations of misconduct is stigmatic and cannot be effected without conducting a disciplinary enquiry. Such termination violates principles of natural justice and is invalid.
Judgment Excerpts
The petition questions the judgment dated 04/03/2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur in the appeal filed by the present petitioner under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 seeking to quash and set aside the notice of termination dated 12/07/2017...
Mr. Patil, learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the notice of termination dated 12/07/2017 was stigmatic, as a result of which, the termination could not have been effected without conducting an enquiry, which was never done...
The order of termination dated 12/07/2017 refers to the earlier communications dated 07/11/2015; 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017...
In the instant case, the order of termination dated 12/07/2017, though claimed to be innocuous, however, since the order of termination refers to the earlier communications dated 07/11/2015; 21/09/2016 and 15/05/2017, which were show cause notices or warnings regarding the conduct of the petitioner, the termination is stigmatic...
The impugned judgment dated 04/03/2019 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, University and College Tribunal, Nagpur is set aside. The notice of termination dated 12/07/2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages from the date of termination till reinstatement, within four weeks.
Procedural History
The petitioner was terminated by notice dated 12/07/2017. He filed an appeal under Section 81 of the Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016 before the University and College Tribunal, Nagpur, which was dismissed on 04/03/2019. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the Bombay High Court, Nagpur Bench, which was heard and allowed on 11/08/2023.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Public Universities Act, 2016: Section 81
