Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Mr. Rohidas Ganpat Godse, was appointed as a lecturer in Accountancy at G.B. Khare College after being selected by a duly constituted Selection Committee. He joined service on 6.2.1999. The petitioner alleged that the management was indulging in malpractice of paying only 50% of the salary to teaching staff while obtaining signatures on documents indicating full payment. On demand by the management, the petitioner submitted a duplicate pass-book. Subsequently, on 1.1.2001, the petitioner was issued an order terminating his services. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal under Section 59 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994, which was dismissed on 27.3.2001. The Tribunal held that the management had established that the petitioner's work and behaviour were not satisfactory and that the petitioner was appointed on a temporary basis and could be terminated on appraisal of his work. The petitioner challenged this order before the High Court. The High Court considered whether the termination order was stigmatic. The court noted that the order stated that the petitioner's work and behaviour had not been found satisfactory, which is a stigmatic remark. The court held that such a stigmatic order cannot be passed without a proper disciplinary inquiry and an opportunity of hearing to the employee. The court set aside the order of the Tribunal and the termination order, and directed the management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Stigmatic Termination - Temporary Employee - The termination order stating that the petitioner's work and behaviour were not satisfactory is stigmatic and cannot be passed without a proper disciplinary inquiry - The court held that such an order casts a stigma on the employee and requires an opportunity of hearing and an inquiry (Paras 4-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination order of a temporary lecturer, which stated that his work and behaviour were not satisfactory, is stigmatic and requires a disciplinary inquiry before termination.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the order of the Tribunal and the termination order, and directed the management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and 50% back wages.
Law Points
- Stigmatic termination requires disciplinary inquiry
- Temporary employee entitled to protection against stigmatic order
- Maharashtra Universities Act
- 1994 Section 59
