PAVANENDRA NARAYAN VERMA versus SANJAY GANDHI P.G.I. OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ANR. NOVEMBERS, 2001

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 41 · Decided: 05-11-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

> 
PAVANENDRA NARAYAN VERMA 
v. 
SANJAY GANDHI P.G.I. OF MEDICAL SCIENCES AND ANR. 
NOVEMBERS, 2001 
[G.B. PATTANAIK AND RUMA PAL, JJ.) 
Service Law : 
Person employed in civil capacities-Dismissal of-Employee appointed 
on probation-Such probationary period extended from time to time-Subse-
quently, services of employee terminated-Prior to termination inquiry was 
held to assess the suitability of the employee to be con.firmed in service-
Correctness of-Held : Enquiry held prior to tem1ination has not turned the 
order of termination into one of punishment-Employer is entitled to hold an 
inquiry to satisfy itself as to the competence of a probationer to be confirmed 
in service-Hence, termination order, not being punitive or stigmatic in nature, 
valid-Constitution qflndia, Art. 311. 
A 
B 
c 
D 
Termination order-Punitive, stigmatic or simplicitor-Tests to deter-
mine-Held: I a) Whether prior to termination a full scale formal enquiry is 
held, (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct and which 
(c) culminated in a.finding qf guilt-if all three.factors are present the temii-
E 
nation order is punitive irrespective qf the .fom1 qf termination order-Con-
versely, if any one qfthe.factors is missing the temiination order is not punitive. 
Practice and Procedure : 
Affidavit-Use qf-Held: An affidavit cannot improve or supplement an 
order. 
The appellant was temporarily appointed to the post of Joint Direc-
tor (Materials Management) of respondent No. l. The period of probation 
was extended from time to time. Subsequently respondent No.l terminated 
the appellant's services. Prior to the termination order a summary inquiry 
was held against the appellant in which a charge sheet had been issued to 
appellant. The appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court chal-
lenging the aforesaid termination order, which was dismissed. Hence this 
appeal. 
41 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
42 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the termination 
order was punitive and cast a stigma on the appellant and could not be 
sustained without a full scale departmental inquiry; and that the respond-
ents' contention before the High Court that the appellant's integrity and 
honesty were doubtful showed that the termination order was punitive. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that the inquiry was 
held merely to assess the appellant's fitness and suitability for being con-
tinued on probation. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : 1. 1f 'punishment' were restricted to "evil consequences", 
the Court's task in deciding the nature of an order of termination would 
have been easier. Courts would only have to scan the termination order to 
see whether it ex-fade contains a stigma or refers to a document which 
stigmatises the officer, in which case the termination order would have to 
D 
.be set aside on the ground that it is punitive. In these cases the 'evil 
consequence' must be assessed in relation to the blemish on the employee's 
reputation so as to render him unfit for service elsewhere and not in 
relation to the post temporarily occupied by him. [48-B-C-D] 
Parshottam Lal Dhingra v. Union Qf India, Affi (1958) SC 36, Shamsher 
E 
Singh v. State qf Punjab, [1974] 2 SCC 831 and Benjamin (A.G.) v. Union qf 
India, (1967) 1 L.L.J. 718, referred to. 
F 
G 
2.1. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in 
substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the 
termination there was (a) a full scale formal enquiry, (b) into allegations . 
involving moral turpitude or misconduct, (c) which culminated in a find-
ing of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination is punitive 
irrespective of the form of the termination order. [50-A-B] 
S.P. Vasudeva v. State of Haryana, [1976] 1 SCC 236, referred to. 
2.2. Whenever a probationer challenges his termination the court's 
first task will be to apply the test of stigma or the 'form' test. If the order 
survives this examination the 'substance' of the termination will have 'to be 
found out. [51-H; 52-A] 
H 
State of U.P. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, [1991] 1 SCC 691, RQdhey 
-
P.N. VERMA v. SANJAY GANDHI P.G.l. OF MEDICAL SCIENCES 
43 
Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation "Ltd., [1999] 1 SCC 
A 
691, Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Stayendra Nath Bose National Centre.for Basic 
Sciences, [19\.19] 3 SCC 60 and Chandra Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., 

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