JASWANTSINGH PRATAPSINGH JADEJA versus RAJKOT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 10 S.C.R. 1124 · Decided: 11-10-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

--\ 
! 
A 
JASW ANTSINGH PRAT APSINGH JADEJA 
v. 
RAJK OT MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ANR. 
OCTOBER 11, 2007 
B 
[S.B. SINHA AND H.S. BEDI, JJ.] 
Service Law-Termination of service-By order of discharge-
-.; 
AppQintment-Jnitial period of probation for six months-Extended 
c from time to time-Despite further non-extention of probation, 
employee continuing on the post-Initiation of disciplinary 
proceeding-On account of misconduct-Departmental enquiry 
initiated but not brought to its logical end-Termination of service by 
Appropriate Authority .finding him guilty of the misconduct-By 
D extending the probation upto -the date of the order of termination-
)., 
Order upheld by High Court-On appeal, held: Termination order by 
Appropriate Authority is not sustainable-The order beingfounded ncJr 
on the basis of unsuitability for the job alone but also on the basis of 
misconduct, was stigmatic and punitive in nature-Extention of 
E probation being in contravention of the prevailing law, the employee 
would be deemed lo have been confirmed after expiry of initial period 
of probation-Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, I 949-
s. 56-Bombay Civil Services Rules-rr. 17.2 and 17.3. 
-4. 
F 
Appellant was appointed on temporary basis by the respondent-
Municipal Corporation. He was put on probation for a period of six 
months. His probation was extended from time to time, although no 
statutory provision existed in that regard. Despite further non-
extention of the probation, he continued to work. Disciplinary 
G 
proceedings were initiated against the respondent on account of 
misconduct of absence from duty without prior leave. His explanation 
y 
on this behalf was rejected. Departmental enquiry was conducted 
but the same was not brought to its logical end. He was discharged 
on the ground of the misconduct by the Appropriate Authority, by 
H 
1124 
j- -
JASWANTSINGHPRATAPSINGHJADEJA V. RAJKOT 1125 
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION 
'( 
further extending the probation. Respondent's Writ Petition against A 
the same was dismissed by Single Judge of High Court. Intra-court 
appeal was also dismissed by Division Bench of High Court. Hence 
the present appeal. 
y 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1. When a disciplinary enquiry is initiated on the premise 
that there are serious allegations of misconduct on the part of the 
delinquent officer; his explanation thereupon had been rejected 
pursuant whereto a full scale formal enquiry has been initiated 
culminating in a finding of guilt, the order terminating the service C 
would be held to be stigmatic. There may also be cases where the 
:allegations involved moral turpitude on the part of the delinquent 
officer. The language used in the order of termination of service may 
ex facie be stigmatic. The language used therein may also show that 
there was something over and above the assertion that the officer D 
was found unsuitable for the job. [Para 9] [1130-D-F] 
2. Termination of services of the appellant purporting to 
discharge him simplicitor cannot be accepted, being stigmatic in 
nature. The form of the order terminating the services coupled with 
the background facts clearly leads to the conclusion that the order E 
impugned in the writ petition by the appellant was punitive. It is 
evident that it was not the unsatisfactory nature and character of 
performance of the appellant only which was taken into consideration 
but series of his acts as well, misconduct on his part had also been 
taken into consideration therefor. It is one thing to say that he was F 
found unsuitable for a job but it is another thing to say that he was 
said to have committed some misconduct. When a report in a 
disciplinary proceeding form the foundation for the order, it would 
be stigmatic in nature. It would have civil consequences. 
[Paras 27, 16 and 24] (1132-B, C; 1135-C; 1137-F] G 
Dipti Prakash Bane1jee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National 
Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors., (1999] 3 SCC 
60 and VP. Ahuja v. State of Punjab and Ors., (2000] 3 SCC 
239, relied on. 
H 
A 
B 
-- ~ 
1126 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 10 S.C.R. ! 
State of Punjab and Ors. v. Sukhwinder Singh, (2005] 5 SCC 
569; Abhijit Gupta v. S.N.B. National Centre, Basic Sciences 
and Ors., (2006) 4 SCC 469; State of Punjab and Ors. v. 
Bhagwan Singh, [2002) 9 SCC 636; Kunwar Arun Kumar v. 
UP. Hill Electronics Corporation Ltd and Ors., [1997] 2 SCC 
191 and Radhey Shyam Gupta v. UP. State Agro Industries 
Corp

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.