Stigmatic termination of a probationary teacher requires regular disciplinary inquiry where the order rests on misconduct findings.

A probationary teacher's termination was treated as punitive, not simplicitor, because it was founded on an internal complaints inquiry, the report's findings on misconduct, and other stigmatic material. The SC held that where dismissal rests on allegations of misconduct involving moral turpitude, the employer cannot avoid regular disciplinary procedure by labelling the order as a non-punitive discharge. Since complaints of sexual harassment required inquiry under the governing statutory framework and service rules, the termination was illegal for want of a regular inquiry. Reinstatement was directed, while back wages and further proceedings were left to the competent authority to decide in accordance with law.

---

---

Issues: Whether the termination of a probationary teacher, passed after an internal complaints inquiry and relying on findings of misconduct, was a simplicitor termination or an ex facie stigmatic and punitive order requiring a regular inquiry; and what consequential relief should follow.

Analysis: The termination order expressly rested on the internal complaints committee report, other documents, and academic performance. The inquiry had been instituted on complaints of sexual harassment by students and culminated in findings against the appellant, with a recommendation to proceed appropriately. Where the foundation of termination is a prior inquiry into allegations of misconduct involving moral turpitude, the order cannot be treated as a mere non-punitive discharge of a probationer. The materials referred to in the order carried stigma, and the situation attracted the settled test that a full-scale formal inquiry into allegations of misconduct culminating in a finding of guilt renders the termination punitive in substance. Complaints of sexual harassment under the statutory framework required inquiry under the 2013 Act and the 2015 Regulations, and the employee could not be denied the protection of a regular inquiry under the service rules merely by styling the order as termination simplicitor.

Conclusion: The termination was held to be ex facie stigmatic and illegal for want of a regular inquiry; the appellant was entitled to reinstatement, while the questions of back wages, suspension, and further departmental or regular proceedings were left to be dealt with by the competent authority in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: If a termination order of a probationer is founded on an inquiry into allegations of misconduct and refers to material that records guilt or stigma, the order is punitive in substance and cannot be sustained without following the regular disciplinary procedure.

---