Probationer – Deemed Confirmation – Termination – Stigmatic
The petitioner was appointed on probation and joined the Airport Director at Shirdi on 4th February, 2022. His probation was extended by four terms of two months each from 1st August, 2022 to 31st March, 2023. Thereafter, the probation was not extended but he was continued in service without any order of confirmation. However, he was terminated vide order dated 2nd June, 2023, on several allegations made in the said order itself.
Even if this case is viewed from an angle of the Petitioner having been presumably continued on probation until the order of termination dated 2nd June, 2023, allegations levelled upon him in the order of termination render the order stigmatic. The law would mandate the employer to conduct a departmental inquiry for proving such charges, aince a stigma has been attached to the petitioner in the termination order in the backdrop of a host of allegations. The termination order, therefore, amounts to being a stigmatic termination. Without conducting a depaertmental inquiry, such order could not have been passed.
If it is assumed that the petitioner is deemed permanent in service, the law as it applies to the case of a probationer in the backdrop of grave allegations
Probation – Confirmation –
Clause 2 of the appointment letter dated 28.7.2021 provide for probation period of one year and likely to be confirmed on satisfactory completion of the probation preriod.
Clause 4 provides that if the work is found unsatisfactory during probation period, the services will be discontinued immediately without any notice period.
Judgment dated 28th February 2025 of the High Court of Bombay Writ Petition (L) No.21711 of 2023 of Sushil Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Maharashtra and others
