Probationer reinstated with back wages after court deems termination invalid due to lack of inquiry

The court found that the termination of the probationer's services was invalid as it was based on allegations without a proper inquiry into misconduct. The termination order contained express stigma affecting future employment prospects. References to previous letters in the order implied stigma, necessitating the appellant's reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. The court set aside previous judgments, quashed the termination order, and directed the appellant's reinstatement. No costs were awarded, allowing respondents to take lawful action.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Circumstances under which the termination of a probationer's services can be considered founded on misconduct or merely motivated by allegations.
2. Determining when an order of termination of a probationer contains an express stigma.
3. Whether stigma can be inferred by referring to proceedings mentioned in the termination order.
4. Relief to be granted.

Detailed Analysis:

Point 1: Circumstances of Termination Based on Misconduct or Allegations
The court examined whether the termination was punitive, based on whether the allegations were the motive or foundation for the termination. It was noted that if findings of misconduct were arrived at without a regular departmental inquiry, the termination would be considered founded on the allegations and thus invalid. However, if no inquiry was held and the employer did not want to continue the employee due to complaints, it would be a case of motive, making the termination valid. The court referenced several precedents, including *Madan Gopal vs. State of Punjab* and *R.S. Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd.*, to clarify the distinction between motive and foundation.

Point 2: Determining Express Stigma in Termination Orders
The court analyzed whether the termination order contained express stigma, which would affect the appellant's future employment prospects. The termination order referred to previous letters that contained adverse findings without a full-fledged inquiry. The court emphasized that if the order or references within it contained findings that amounted to stigma, it would be invalid. The court cited *Kamal Kishore Lakshman vs. Pan American World Airways* to define stigma and noted that terms like "unsatisfactory work and conduct" do not necessarily amount to stigma.

Point 3: Inferring Stigma from Referenced Proceedings
The court considered whether references to previous letters in the termination order could imply stigma. It referred to *Indrapal Gupta vs. Managing Committee*, where the termination order and its enclosures contained stigmatizing language. The court held that stigma need not be in the termination order itself but could be in documents referred to within the order. The court found that the letters referenced in the termination order contained definitive conclusions of misconduct, which should have been established through a regular departmental inquiry, thus implying stigma.

Point 4: Relief Granted
The court concluded that the termination order was based on findings of misconduct without a proper inquiry, making it invalid. The court ordered the reinstatement of the appellant with back wages and continuity of service, rejecting the respondent's argument based on *State of Haryana vs. Jagdish Chander* and *Managing Director, ECIL vs. B. Karunakar*. The court noted that unlike in *Karunakar*, where a regular inquiry was conducted but the report was not provided, no inquiry was held in this case. The appellant was entitled to reinstatement, back wages, and continuity of service due to the lack of evidence of gainful employment elsewhere.

Conclusion:
The appeal was allowed, the judgments of the Division Bench and the learned Single Judge of the High Court were set aside, and the termination order was quashed. The appellant was directed to be reinstated with back wages and continuity of service. The respondents were allowed to take appropriate action in accordance with the law. No costs were ordered.

---