STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. versus RAM BACHAN TRIPATHI

Citation: [2005] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 924 · Decided: 02-08-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

.... 
A 
STATE OF U.P. AND ORS. 
v. 
RAM BACHAN TRIP A THI 
AUGUST 2, 2005 
B 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Termination of service-For unauthorized absence from service-Show 
C cause notice served-No response alleged-Termination in view of no 
response-Employee pleaded that he had responded-Had also joined after 
about one month after the due date-Termination order set aside by Tribunal 
and High Court granting liberty to employer to proceed afresh on the ground 
,...D 
that it contained stigma-On appeal, held: Tribunal was justified in setting 1 
aside the termination order and granting liberty to employer to proceed afresh-
A/legation in the facts of the case did not constitute stigma-Employee directed 
to file reply before concerned authorities-Without prejudice to claim of parties 
employee permitted to join the service-He is not entitled to service benefits 
for the period of unauthorized absence and when he had not rendered service. 
E 
Words and Phrases: 
'Stigma '-Meaning of in the context of Service Law. 
Respondent-employee was transferred and was asked to take-over 
the charge on 15.7.1988. As the respondent did not take-over the charge, 
F show cause notice was served on him and publication was also made in 
the Newspaper. It was alleged that since he did not respond, his services 
were terminated w.e.f. 16.7.1988. Stand of the respondent was that he had 
submitted reply to the show-cause notice and that though he had submitted 
joining report on 11.8.1988, it was not accepted. Questioning the order of 
termination, claim petition of the respondent was allowed by the Tribunal 
G granting liberty to the State to proceed afresh. Writ Petition was dismissed 
on the ground that order of termination contained stigma and no 
H 
· opportunity of hearing was given to the respondent. 
In appeal to this Court, appellant-State contended that though 
924 
> 
STATE OF U.P. v. RAM BACHAN TRIPATHI 
925 
opportunity of hearing was granted, but was not availed of ; that A 
respondent was not entitled to service benefits as he did not work during 
the period he remained unauthorisedly absent and that order of 
termination did not contain any stigma. 
Partly allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The Tribunal was justified in setting aside the order of 
termination while granting liberty to the State to proceed afresh. As it is 
accepted by the respondent-employee, he is directed to file a reply before 
the concerned authorities. Without prejudice to the claims of the parties, 
B 
he may be permitted to join at such place as the State Government may C 
direct. The respondent-employee shall not be entitled to any service benefit 
for the period he remained unauthorisedly absent and for the subsequent 
period during which he had not rendered any service. But the latter period 
shall be counted for the purpose of continuity of service. While taking a 
final decision in the matter, the entitlement of the respondent for any 
service benefit, shall be dealt with, except to the extent dealt with by this D 
Court. (928-B-D) 
Dhananjay v. Chief Executive Officer, Zilla Parishad, Jalna, (2003] 2 
SCC 386; Union of India and Anr. v. Bihari Lal Sidhana, [19971 4 SCC 385 
' 
and Managing Director, ECJL, Hyderabad and Ors. v. B. Karunakar and Ors., E 
[1993) 4 sec 727, relied on. 
2. Usually a stigma is understood to be something that is detraction 
from the character or reputation of a person. It is blemish, imputation, a 
mark or label indicating a deviation from a norm. Mere description of a 
background fact cannot be called as stigma. In the termination order it F 
was merely stated that the show-cause notices were issued and there was 
no response. This can by no stretch of imagination be treated as a stigma. 
(927-E-F) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3725 of2002. 
G 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.2001 of the All~habad High 
Court in W.P. No. 1062(S/B) of 2001. 
Prashant Chaudhary and Praveen Swarup for the Appellants. 
Respondent. 
Mrs. Shobha Dikshit, Rohit Rishi and T. Mahipal with her for the 
H 
926' 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2005) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
,..-~ 
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. The State ofUttar Pradesh is in appeal against 
the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court 
holding that the order of termination dated 14.10.1992 terminating services 
B 
of the respondent w.e.f 10.5.1988 was illegal, as held by State Publ

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