MANISH PRAKASHMAL DAK Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR & ANR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is at the instance of the original petitioner who preferred the petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to quash the order dated 1.4.2013 whereby his services were terminated. Learned Single Judge has observed that since during probation period, the respondent found that the performance of the appellant was not satisfactory, it passed impugned order of not extending the service beyond probation period. It is further observed by the learned Judge that the services of the petitioner have not been terminated on account of any misconduct or any guilt proved against him but since it was found that there was no improvement in the performance of the petitioner, the University took decision to relieve him from service by impugned order which was not stigmatic.

(2.) WE have heard learned advocates for the parties.

(3.) LEARNED advocate Mr. Bhushan Oza appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was in fact discharging his duty very satisfactorily, however since he was allotted two other subjects for teaching, which was of a technical nature for which the appellant was not appointed, and since the petitioner requested to change such subjects, the same was taken as unsatisfactory performance of the appellant, which was not permissible. Mr. Oza submitted that the appellant was issued show cause notice alleging lack of eligibility and capability to perform his duty and asking to explain as to why the appellant should not be removed from service. The appellant rendered explanation to such show cause notice and thereafter, punitive action was taken against the appellant by the impugned order. Mr. Oza submitted that though the order is termed as simple termination order but the same was stigmatic order which could not have been passed against the appellant without following regular departmental inquiry. Mr. Oza submitted that the appellant was found duly qualified in the regular selection process and was then appointed to discharge his duties in the subject for which his selection was made and under these circumstances, it was not open to the respondents to terminate the services of the appellant on the basis that the appellant was not eligible and capable to discharge his duty. Mr. Oza submitted that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in holding that the order of termination passed against the appellant was not stigmatic but was simple termination order as the appellant could not improve his performance during the probation period. Mr. Oza thus urged to allow the appeal.