Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Shailesh Sadanand Raut, applied for the post of Works Assistant in the Public Works Department (PWD) of the Government of Goa pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2014. He was successful in the written examination and was selected. After completing procedural formalities, he was appointed by an order dated 30.8.2017. However, by a subsequent order dated 18.9.2017, his services were terminated without any prior notice or inquiry. The termination order stated that his performance was 'not satisfactory' and that he was 'not suitable' for the post. The petitioner challenged this termination by way of a writ petition before the Bombay High Court at Goa. The court heard the matter and framed the issue of whether the termination of a probationer without holding an inquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing is valid, especially when the order contains stigmatic remarks. The court noted that the termination order was stigmatic as it contained allegations of unsatisfactory performance and unsuitability. The court held that such a termination is punitive in nature and cannot be passed without following the principles of natural justice. The court relied on the settled legal position that even a probationer has a right to be heard before a stigmatic order is passed. The court set aside the termination order and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. The writ petition was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Termination of Probationer - Stigmatic Order - The termination order of a probationer which contains allegations of misconduct or casts a stigma on the employee cannot be passed without holding a proper inquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing - The order terminating the petitioner's services stated that his performance was 'not satisfactory' and that he was 'not suitable' for the post, which are stigmatic remarks - Held that such termination is punitive in nature and requires compliance with principles of natural justice (Paras 7-10). B) Service Law - Probationer - Right to Hearing - Even a probationer has a right to be heard before an order of termination which is based on unsatisfactory performance or unsuitability and which casts a stigma - The court relied on the principle that any order which adversely affects the rights of an employee must be passed after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard - Held that the termination order was violative of natural justice (Paras 8-10). C) Service Law - Termination - Validity - The termination order dated 30.8.2017 appointing the petitioner as Works Assistant was set aside by the court as it was passed without any inquiry and without giving any opportunity to the petitioner to explain his alleged unsatisfactory performance - The court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits (Paras 11-12).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the termination of the petitioner, a probationer, without holding any inquiry and without affording an opportunity of hearing, is valid in law, particularly when the termination order contains stigmatic remarks.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the termination order dated 18.9.2017, and directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service and all consequential benefits. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Termination of a probationer without inquiry is permissible only if it is not stigmatic
- Termination based on unsatisfactory performance or unsuitability requires an opportunity of hearing if it casts a stigma
- A probationer has a right to be heard before a stigmatic termination order is passed
