Allowed

Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagle v. Chairperson

Telangana HC27 Nov 2025WP/44481/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed an order terminating the services of a probationer during probation where the order contained stigmatic observations regarding misconduct without following principles of natural justice. The Court directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioner's case for re-employment in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Writ Petition allowed; impugned termination order quashed; respondents directed to reconsider petitioner's case for re-employment with consequential benefits.

Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagle Vs… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Telangana HC (2025)

¶1

132521

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE^{STATEOF TELANGANA} AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction)

¶3

THURSDAY, THE TWENTY SEVENTH^{DAYOF NOVEMBER} TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MRS JUSTICE^{SUREPALLI NANDA}

¶6

WRIT PETITION NO:44481 OF²⁰²²

¶7

Between:

¶8

Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb^{Khandagle,Aged about 42 yearc,S/o Sri Bapusaheb} yashwant Khandagale OCC. Senior Medical Officer (Under removal). lnstitute Health Centre. Naiional lnstitute^{of Technology, Warrangal.R/o Q No.812l4,NIT} Campus, Warrangal 506004.^{PeramnentAddress- Ryo 114, JogeshwariStation'} Road Tazgaon Dist.Sangli.^Maharashtra.

¶9

.....PETITIONER

¶10

AND

¶11

'l . Chairperson, Board of Governors and Director, National lnstitute of Technology, Warrangal, Hanumakonda^{506004, TelanganaState.}

¶12

Board of Governors, National^{lnstitute of Technology, Warrangal,} Hanumakonda 506004, Telangana State^{rep by its Director.}

¶13

Union of lndia, Ministry of Human^{Resource Development, (department of} Higher Education), Government of lndia,New^{Delhi,repby its Secretaryto} Government of lndia.

¶14

Union of lndia, Ministry of^Home Affairs,,^{represented by its Secretaryto} Government, Government of lndia,^{North Block} ,^{New Delhi'110001,} lndia.

¶15

(R4 is impleaded as per Court Order dated 29/08/2023 in l.A.No.01/2023)

¶16

.,...RESPONDENTS

¶17

Petition Under Article 226 of the Constitution of^{lndia praying that in the} circumstances stated in the affidavit^{filed therewith,the High Courtmay be} pleased to issue a Wirt or order preferably in the nature of Writ of^{Mandamus and} after calling for records^pertaining to^{the impugned Proceedings/Order impugned} Proceedings/Order NITW/|D-94912O2213485^{dated2-12-2022 passedby 1st} Respondent declare the impugned^{proceedings terminatingthe services of this}

¶18

petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, wholly^{withoutpoweror juris<li ;tion, contrary to law} and unconstitutional^{being violative of principles of natural t stice and contraryto} Articles 12,14,16^{and 21 ol constitutionof lndia andconseq.r -'ntly quash the same} as such and consequently^{quashthe Minutes of the 59thIt, k eting of the Board of} Governors held on^{24-2-23 (whichwas handedover to the p :titioner'scounsel on} 20-3-23 in the court)^{BoG Resolution ratifying the action tali n by the chairperson} I/c^{in terminating the services of the Petitioner as null and r rid and consequently} declare that the^{petitioneris entitled to be reinstatedv ith all consequential} benefits like arrears^{of salary, seniorityetc forthwithandr;r nsequently directthe} Respondent herein to immediately^{reinstatethe petitiono into service with all} consequential benefits^{as prayed above.}

¶19

|.A.NO:1 OF 2022

¶20

Petition Under Section^15'1 CPC^{praying that in the c rcumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support^{of the petition,the HighCr} 'r^{rt maY be pleased tc} suspend the impugned^{Proceedings/order impugnedProc: :dings/o(ler NITW/ID-} S4gt2O22t34B5 dated 2-12-2022^passed by^{1st Resporrrent and consequently} direct_the l st Respondent^{not to evict the petitionerfrom tt ( quartersthe petitioner} is staying^pending disposal of the above^{writ petition.}

¶21

1.A.NO:2 OF 2022

¶22

Petition under Section 151 CPC^praying that^{in th€ :ircumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^{Courtn ay be pleasedto TAKE} INTO consideration the^perent Rejoinder also and cons³ luently^{please to allow} the above writ petition.

¶23

I.A.NO: 2OF 2023

¶24

Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in thr: oircumstances stated n the affidavit filed in support of the^petition, the High^Cc Jrt may^{be pleasedbe} pleased to suspend the impugned order/Minules of the 5⁽ th Meeting of the Boa.d of Governors held on 2412123 (which was handed over tc the petitioner's counsel

¶25

on 2)t3l23 in the court)^{BOG Resolutionratifying the action takenby the} Chairperson l/c in terminating^{the services of the Petitioner of the 59thMeetingof} the Board of Governors^{held on2412123 (whichwas handed over to the petitioner's} counsel on 2Ot3l23 in the Court)^{pendingdisposal of the abovewrit petition.}

¶26

l.A.NO:4 OF 2023

¶27

Between

¶28

1 . Chairperson, Board of Governors^{and Director, Nationallnstituteof} Technology, Warrangal, Hanumakonda^{506004' Telangana State'}

¶29

Board of Govemors,^{National lnstitute of Technology, Warrangal,} Hanumakonda 506004, Telangana^{State rep by its Director-}

¶30

.....PETITIONERS

¶31

AND

¶32

1 Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagle,^{Agedabout 42 y-e-a's, S/o Sri Bapusaheb} iis[wint Khhndagale OCC-.^{SeniorMedicalOfficer (Under rgnp.va[} f niiitute nealth Ce-ntre. National^{lnstituteof Technology,Warrangal'R/o Q} No-Af Zl+, NIT Campus,^{Warrangal 506004.PeramnentAddressRio 1 14'} Jogeshwari Station,^{Road Tazgaon Dist.Sangli. Maharashtra'}

¶33

2 Union of lndia, Ministry of^{HumanResource Development, (dePartmentof} Higher Educaiion), Government^{of lndia,NewDelhi,rep by its Secretary to} Government of lndia.

¶34

.....RESPONDENTS

¶35

Petition Under section 151^{CPCpraying thatin the circumstancesstatedin} the affidavit filed in support of^{the petition, the High courtmay be pleased to} vacate lhe interim order^d aled^{2OlO3l2O23passed in W.P.No.44481 ot 2022'}

¶36

|.A.NO:1 OF 2024

¶37

Petition under Section 151 CPC^{praying thatin the circumstances statedin} the affidavit filed in support of the^{petition, the High courtmay be pleasedto treat} the additional affidavit / additional^{material papersas partand parcel of the main} writ petition and allow the above^{writ petition.}

¶38

Counsel for the Petitioner : DR K.LAKSHMI NARASIMHA

¶39

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2 : SRI R.ANURAG

¶40

Counsel for the Respondent Nos.3 & 4 : SRI N.BHUJANGI, tAO, DEPUW SOLICITOR GENERAL OF INDIA

¶41

The Court made the following ORDER

¶42

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUREPALLT NANDA

¶43

WRIT PETITION No.444A10 F 2022

¶44

ORD ER:

¶45

Heard Dr. K.Laskhmi Narasimha, learned counset appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Sri R.Anurag, learned standing counse! appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Sri N.Bhujanga Rao, learned Deputy Solicitor General of India, appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos.3 & 4.

¶46

2. The Detitioner A DDTO ached the Cou rt s ekino

¶47

ame ded oraver as u der:

¶48

"...to issue a Writ or order preferably in the nature of Writ of Mandamus and after calling for records pertaining to the impugned proceedings/Order NITW/ID949l2022/3485, dated 21.02.2022 passed by 1st Respondent declare the impugned proceedings terminating the services of this petitioner as illegal, arbitrary, wholly without power or jurisdiction, contrary to law and unconstitutiona I being violative of principles of natural justice and contrary to Articles 12, 14,16 and 21 of Constitution of India and consequently quash the same as such and consequently quash the Minutes of the 59th meeting of the Board of Governors held on 24.02.2023 (which was handed over to the petitioners counsel on 20.03.2023 in the Court) BOG Resolution ratifying the action taken by the Chairperson I/c in terminating the services of the petitioner as null and void and consequenUy declare that the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated with all consequential benefits like arrears of salary, seniority etc torthwith and consequently direct the respondent herein to

¶49

¶50

SN. J

¶51

immediately^{reinstate the petitionerinto servic r with all} consequential^{benefits as prayed above.""}

¶52

T c of he lo rt rie ,LS oer he averm ents made bv th^e Det^{itionerin the} ffitI rvit filed^bv the Detitioner^{in suDoort oftheDresent WritE etition is as}

¶53

under:-

¶54

The^{petitioner was appointed as Senior Medice I Officer in the} respondent Institute^{through AppointmentOrder \o'399 dated} 06.O5.2022,^{placed on probationfor one year'' and allotted} residential Quarter^{No.B12l4 on 23/24'05'2022'} 't 02'12'2022' the 1st respondent^{issuedthe impugnedProcetrr ings/OrderNo'} NITW/ID-949/202213485,^{abruptly terminatin(l his services} during^{probation. The Chairperson of the Board,vho issued the} order,^{had no poweror jurisdiction as the app()i rting/removing} authority for a^{post with pay scale above Rs' 10'500/'is} exclusively^{the Board of Governors (BOG)'}

¶55

It is further the^{case of the petitionerthe - the impugned} order was issued^{without a chargememo, witt out an enquiry'} and without affording^{any opportunity,in 1( tal violation of} principles of natural^{justice, the First Statutl;, and the CCS}

¶56

¶57

SN, J

¶58

(CCA) Rules, 1965. No adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner herein, no assessment procedure for probation was followed, and several allegations-such as complaints by unnamed persons, issues relating to ph.D. application, possession of licensed firearms, and a police comptaint-were either false, irrelevant, or incapable of constituting misconduct. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned Proceedings/Order No. NITW/ID949/2022/3485 dated O2.t2.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent and also seeking consequential reinstatement with arrears, seniority, all service benefits and for protection from eviction from Quarter No.812/4 pending disposal of the writ petition. After filing the present writ petition, the respondents produced the Minutes of the 59th Meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) dated 24.02.2023, which purported to ratify the termination retrospectively. Later, this Court through its order dated 03.01.2024 in I.A. No.3 of 2023 in the present Writ petition, the petitioner amended the prayer to also seek quashing of the said BOG Resolutions.

¶59

4. PERUSED THE R ECORD.

\N, J

A The levan of r r imo oned

¶64

No. NITW/ID-9^{49/2022t3485.dated O2.12. 2022 oassed} bv the 1tt soonde nt rse racted hereun er:

¶65

AND WHEREAS owing^{to his erraticz r d belligerent} attitude, the^{functioningof the Institute He;rl h Centre has} come to a stand-still.^{He has spent cons i lerable office} hours for the benefit of^{his personal issue:; which would} otherwise could^{have been utilized for : e benefit of} Institute;

¶66

AND WHEREAS^{the official claims to f i ve a licensed} revolver and has^{been moving in the canl rus displaying} the same^{without the permission of Estate )fficer or "the} local police. The^{Kazipet Police have c( nfiscated two} weapons from^{his residenceon dt.01.12.20'll;}

¶67

AND WHEREAS^{havingdone the aforerlentionedacts} and realizing that^{his continuation on a( ( cunt of grave} misconducts^{has become untenable,the off :ial has filed a} mala fide complaint^{on with the Commis:;i )ner of Police,} Warangal with copy^{marked to the(azipetPolice} Ot.D.rO2z against^{the Directorand R( gistrar of the} Institute that they^{are threateninghim i bout dismissal} from service;

¶68

AND WHEREAS^{the aforesaid circurr jtancesclearly} show that the^{official has scant regard ltthe rulesand} reg ulations of the^{Institute nor to the offi': )rs to whomhe} is reporting.^{With his} expression o threatened the^officers to issue him tlr^f :^ultimatum, No Objection^he Certificate^{for admissionto Ph'D. which is inpermissibleas} per rules and created unrest^{and unhealttlatmospherein} the Institute in^{general at Institute l-l':alth Centrein} particular. ue subhitted^{numerousmes:;i ges to multiple} authorities on the^{same issue bypassing the prescribed} channel displaying^{totalinsubordination;}

¶69

AND WHEREAS^{the Institute and its :mployees have} suffered on account^{of the misconductof : e oificial'Owing}

¶70

¶71

SN. J

¶72

to various representations bypassing the hierarchy and his threats, the functioning and reputation of the Institute has been severely suffered and vitiated the working environment in the Institute. He has created a fear psychosis among the employees by threatening to use his force and weapons. NIT Warangal-being a premier Institution of National Importance, it should have a free and fair work environment where people can function effectively and productively;

¶73

AND WHEREAS considering the fact that the officiat joined the Institute in the month of May, 2022, the series of misconducts exhibited by him during the short span of six months, that too during the period of probation, the official proved himself to be a liability and unfit person to be retained in service,

¶74

19.AND WHEREAS as per Clause (2) of the terms and conditions of his appointment. you will be on probation For a period of one year. During the period of probation, your services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason and notice";

¶75

NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred as Chairperson, Board of Governors and Director of the Institute, the undersigned hereby terminates the services of Maj. Dr. Khandagale Sachin Bapusaheb, with immediate effect, in terms of clause (2) of the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment dt.06.05.2022

¶76

DISC SSION AN D CONLCUSION:-

¶77

5 Lea ned counsel a DDea ra n on behalf of the Detiti ner mainlv puts-fort h the followanq submiss IOnS:-

¶78

¶79

SN, J

¶80

i) The impugned order,^{datedO2.12'2Oll I issued by} the 1't respondent^{is contrary to Iaw i nd violates} of Articles L4,^{L6 and 21 ofthe Cor stitution of} India.

¶81

ii) The impugned order^{is without} iurisdit^tion

¶82

iii) The impugned^{order is stigmatic.}

¶83

iv) The order impugned^{order is conl:r ary to first} statute of the institute.

¶84

v) The order impugned^{is contrary to'espondents'} own regulations.

¶85

Based on the^{aforesa id} submiss ij ons,^learned counseIa oearl no on^{behalf of the Det tll} )^ler,contends that the im^uoned rder, da ted O2.L2.2^{( 22 has to be} set-aside nd th oetitioner ls entitled^ft )'^{the relief as} oraved for^bv the^{oetitioner inthe Dresen} !^{writ oetition.}

¶86

6 Lear eds ndinq couns I^aooearlr 1r^{on behalf of} the resDO dent os.1 2 lairlv admits^{:hat the order} imo oned is stiomati^{c. but howeverimDr} ses u n cou exola ininq the crrcum stance wh ch led to e

¶87

¶88

SN. J

¶89

stn of ord d ted .12.2 b

¶90

the lst resoondent herein.

¶91

Th th n rit on

¶92

extracted ereund er: -

¶93

(i) Whether the Respondent has got any power or jurisdiction to terminate the service of this petitioner?

¶94

(ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent terminating the services of this petitioner during the period of probation is stigmatic and whether it is sustainable in law?

¶95

_(iii)^{Whetherthe impugnedorder is violative of principles} of natural justice in as much as no opportunity was given to this petitioner before passing such an order?

¶96

8.A bare oeru al oft he ord r rmDu qned, dated

¶97

2.2 2 of ltt r n n sth the order i mouonedisst o matic. st ce it is observ din the tmDuqn ed orderasun er:-

¶98

w t tion err an ef onr f h n e th n as

¶99

come to a stand stil!. ai) The official i.e.. t e Detita oner herein has scant ar rul an e ul sof h tn tu n r tot e officerstowhom oe troner is reDo tno.

¶100

¶101

SN, J

¶102

ii i) Th officer h as created afearD cl! )sis a^monq he em ees t at ntn us 1 s forcea nd wea ns.

¶103

iv) Th off ial ve hi elf b a _^{iabilitv and} unfit oerson tober^{etai ned inservice.}

¶104

Th sCo rt^{oDnes thatall theabove ot1 ;ervationsin} th rd rrm n d 2.L o ,i ssed bv the 1"t nt m dl v s rn J^il cord and even as admitted^{fairlv bv theleal tedcounsel} a a o beh fof he s o e lre stiq matic eventua^{I I} v effec^{tioonthe ftureof thED! titioner.}

¶105

hi u lnv wo he a or llnf ecord that the order^{imouqned oassed bv the 1't restl- lndent'dated} 02.L 2.2o22,^{didnotmentionanvoft} e -:ircumstances f, r nines that the whichledtot^{heoassinqofthe saidorde} or rt u di b reft fr n n I :nc oatentlv unrea nable.

¶106

1O. The Aoex Court^{in the iudoment'da!ed 15'1O'2015} ed R t h m c d Indira Ga ndhi nd Ot rs Institute of M di^{cal S} clences. Patna,^Bihr

¶107

¶108

SN. J

¶109

reoorted in⁽ 2()15) 15 SCC 151 and at oara Nos.17 and 26

¶110

are observed as u nder: -

¶111

This Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta case noticed that there are two lines of authorities. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers, it had taken the view that if the ex_ parte enquiry or report is the motive for the termination order, then the termination is not to be called punitive merely because the principles of natural justice have not been followed; and in the other line of decisions, this Court has ruled that if the facts revealed in the enquiry are not the motive but the foundation for the termination of the services of the temporary Servant or probationer, it would be punitive and principles of natural justice are bound to be followed and failure to do so would make the order legally unsound. The Court referred to the judgments rendered in Samsher Singh (supra), Parshotam Lal Dhi nqra vs. Union of India t6l, State of Bih a r VS. Goni Kishore Prasa d t7l and tate of Orissa vs Ram N ra anD tBl^{and, ev} entually, opined that if there was any difficulty as to what was "motive" or "foundation" even a fter the Samsher Singh's case the said doubts were removed in Guia rat Steel T UbES Ltd. vs. Guiarat Steel Tubes M azdoor Sabha iel. The clarification given by the Constitution Bench in the said case, being instructive, the twoJudge Bench reproduced the same, which we think we should do:-

¶112

"26........53. Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by terminological cover-ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other proceedings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus scrutinised, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short oF this test, it cannot be called a punishment. To put it slighfly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under [he

¶113

¶114

SN. ]

¶115

standing order or^{otherwise. Whether,in su r h a casethe} groundi are recorded in a^{different procee(ing from the} iormal order does^{not detract from its natur:Nor the fact} that, after being^{satisfiedof the guilt,the m'r ter abandons} the enquiry and^{proceeds to terminate Gi'r:n an alleged} misconduc[ and a^{live nexus betweenitand the} termination of^{service the conclusionis-disr rissal, even if} full benefits as on^{simple termination, are (l ven and non-} injurious terminologY^{is used.}

¶116

On the^{contrary, even ifthere is; suspicionof} misconduct the^{master may say that he dtl:s not wish to} bother about it^{and may not} 9o^{into his guil . but may feel} like not keeping a^{man he is not happy wic r' He maynot} like to investigJte^{nor take the risk of conti1 iing a dubious} servant. Then it^{is not dismissal but termine1 on simpliciter,} if no injurious^{recordof reasons or punitivo pecuniary cut-} back on his^{full terminalbenefits is foun< 'For, in fact,} misconduct is^{not then the moving factor i'r the discharge'} We need not^{chase other hypotheticalsituat cns here "}

¶117

In the^facts of^{PalakModi case, the Cotr t proceeded to} state that there^{is a marked distinction between 'he concepts of} satisfactory^{completionof probation andsucce: sful passing of} itre trainingTtest^{held duringor at the end ol the period of} probation,^-which are sine^{qua non for co-t 'irmation of a} probationer and the Bank's^{right to punish a pr() )ationerfor any} defined misconduct,^{misbehaviour or misdemear our' In a given} case, the^{competentauthority may, while deciri ng the issue of} irituOiritv of the^{probationerto be confirmed, igrl )re the act(s)of} misconductandterminatehisservicewithrlltcastingany aspersion or^{stigma which may adversely ;r fect his future} pioip".t, but, if ihe^{misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the} basis of the final^{decisiontaken by the comperi 3nt authority to} dispense with the^{serviceof the probationer} lbeit by a non:l stigmatic order, the Court^{can lift the veil aid declare that} int he oarb of terminati on srm liciter th, e e olo er ha^s oun ished the emolo^{vee frana} of mrs^cor ! luct.

¶118

The oex Court in the iudomen d:I ed 03.1 2.20^1,2 p din ate Bank of India & others Vs Pa la k Modi^and

¶119

¶120

SN. J

¶121

noth o din 2 1 s 7 n tc

¶122

oara Nos. 1 6. 17& 2 observ das un er: -

¶123

In State of Puniab and an ther v. Sukh Rai Bahadur (1968) 3 SCR 2 34, Mitter, l. considered several precedents and culled out the following propositions: *1. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution.

¶124

The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial. If th r erv th lic wt n v n ces ca as on n h cha racter or inteq ritv it mus beconsadered tobe one bv wav of ounishment, no matter wheth rhe was a mere D bationer or a tem orarv servant.

¶125

An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service does not attract the operation of Article 311 of th e Constitution.

¶126

If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged by A e 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a charge-sheet submitted, explanation called for and considered, any order of termination of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said article.,, 17_- In State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (tg7}) 2 SCC 871, the three Judge Bench considered the question whether the respondent's reversion from the post of Subedar-Major to that of Sergeant in the backdrop of an inquiry made into the allegation of assault on his subordinate was punitive. On behalf oF the appellant, reliance was also placed on the judgments in State of Puniab v. Sukh Rai Bahadur ( su^pra )and Union of India v.

¶127

¶128

SN. J

¶129

R. S. Dhaba .Income-ta^{x Officer, Hosh ra rou r,e6e (3) SCC} 603 and it was arg^{ued that the order of re'z rrsion cannot} be treated as Puniti^{ve becauseit did not corrl ain any word} of stigma and^{theHigh Court committedan error bY} relying upon the^{inquiryconducted by the Cc' r rmandant for} the conclusion that^{the order ofeversion was} coming to punitive. While rejecting the contentiorr^{this Court} observed:

¶130

We are unable to accede^{to the contentioncl the appellant} that the ratio of the^abov ecrsl n is that s:^{long as there} are no express^{wordsof stigma attributedtche conduct of} a Government^{Offlcer in the impugned ord: - it cannotbe} held to have been^{made by way of punishmr: )t The test as} previously laid and which was^{relied on w I ; whether the} misconduct or^{negligence was a mere moti/ ifor the order} oF reversion or^{whetherit was the very fot-r dationof that} order. In Dhaba^{case, it was not found th:the orderof} reversion was based^{on misconductor ne( ligence of the} officer. So^{far as we are aware no such ri! i J principle has} ever been laid do^{wn bv this court that one - ls only to look} to the order and if^{it doesnot containan) imputationof} misconduct or^{words attaching a stigma to t le character or} reputation of a Government^{Officer it must l'e held to have} been made in the ordinary^{course of admir i ;trative routine} and the court^{is debarred from looking at it lthe attendant} circumstances to discover^{whether the} ')-der^{had been} made by way of^{punishment. The form of I he order is not} conclusive of^its true^{nature and it might nt :rely be a cloak} or camouflage for^{an order founded on mi:; onduct'It may} be that an order^{which is innocuouson tl- tface and does} not contain any^{imputation of misconductis a circumstance} or a^piece of^{evidencefor finding whether t was madeby} way of^punishment or^{administrative r( utine' But the} entlrety of circumstances^{preceding or u ltendanton the} impugned order must^{be examined and tl r overriding test} will always be whether^{the misconductis} 'l^{mere motive or} is the veiy foundation^{of the order." (emphrsis supplied)}

¶131

The ratio of the^{above noted jud'] nents is thata} probationer has no right to hold the^{post and his service} can be terminated at^{any time duringor . t the end of the}

¶132

¶133

S. J

¶134

period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an rnquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the com petent authority can not be castigated as punitive. -However, if the all ationof mrscon duct consti tutes the founda ron th tak th Itim k e m t hori ca b Ii th un fv ati of h rul fn ra!

¶135

t2. Th ex ou th u en a 9.1 o2 sed i Ravi r V fJh kha an th ort in2 OnLine 192 ndi a r Dara Nos.38 and 39 observed as und er: -

¶136

38 Since the res nden ts ha act din a rather hiohhand d. arbitrar and ille al m a nner tn rm n e v! of !t wt t iustifiabl e reaso n and also followino due orocess. the o t r tn h rv s e ell a als set aside.

¶137

The appellants Ravi and prem Lal been in continuous service right from the date(s) of their original shall be treated to have appointment (December, 2}lr, as if their services were never terminated. They shall be entiHed to service benefits like arrears of pay in full and seniority counted from the dates of initial appointment. However, for the purpose of meeting the experience criterion for promotion, the period not spent on duty will not be counted. The rationale behind this direction is that practical experience .^{of teachingis gained through imparting} of lessons to the students. Thercannot, thus] be held to have acquired experience without hands_on work. Though the appellants are not at fault, we have attempted to suitabty compensate them by awarding full arrears of pay.

¶138

¶139

SN.¹

¶140

This cou rt in its iud^ment,dated Oar 09, 2O19ⁱⁿ N.G oDal rish na Vs. S ate of^Telanoana oo L ed in 2 19 SCC Onli neTS3^{589 adatoara Nos. 1Oand - 1 observed} as n der: -

¶141

This Court,^{having considered the rival :'r bmissions,is} of the considered^{view that the impugn€ rtermination} order issued vide^{G.O.Rt.No.420,date'l 21'05'2019} admittedly causes^{certain stigmatouchir Iuponthe} competence of the^{petitioner,as the resl) )ndentshave} ,sed expressions^{such as arrogant, i' lFficientand} unproduciive in^{his work. However,it is ttl be seen that} beiore issuing the^{impugnedterminati()rorder, the} respondents^{-have issuedappreciationI€ tters tothe} petitioner, which go to show^{that the I aid stigmatic} observations are^{made at the instanceof ihe complaint} made by the defacto-com^{pla inant and the - lmarksof one} IPS Officer. When the^{respondents are caL: ing stigma on} the competency^{oF the petitioner,they ( ught to have} conducted an enquiry,^{at least by givintl a reasonable} opportunity to^{the petitionerto defend hiri case' But' no} such effort is^{made by the respondents31d hence, the} action oF the^{respondents in terminatingthtl services of the} petitioner without^{giving any opportunity-tcrim is contrary} to law as held^{by the Hon'ble Supreme Corl 't in the cases'} referred to^su P^ra.

¶142

rf nde t .j^{erm inate the} rvl o he ati r e U^{oht tohave} rmln dint for t tn g n simolicitor. But int tn nt case. the r tnd nts have terminated the services of the Deti t oner ca uslno ma ch e The e re - he imouqned termin ation order^{issuedvide G} .O.Rti No.42O^dated 21.05. 2(JL9 is liable to be se as^,j le and it^is acc rdinolv set slde witha dir e ction to the res ondents to cont^nue t^{he oetilon€ 1'l} a Ad itron al Publi c Prosec tor with a il cons uen I al ben fits^till of ber co pletion of his ten ure i.e., the e t

¶143

¶144

SN. J

¶145

With the above observataons, the writ oetition is allowed. No order as to costs.

¶146

L4. Learned standino counsel aooearino on be alf of the resDondentNos.l&2 cont nds that in view of the fact e tati n rw t e eriod t r therefore as oer the terms of the order of the aooointment issued in favour of the Detitioner herein, the services of the Detitaoner could be termanated without qivinq anv notrce since there is no reouirement under la to issue notice.

¶147

This Court oDines that the said olea is not tenable and is reiecte in view of the clear observations in the d men t Co rt referr x above) whi ch verv clearlv indicate that t e orinciole of audi alterem rtem needs to be necessarilv followed before anv adverse order is oassed, which imooses stioma uDon the Detit oner. A bare oerusal of the order imouoned (referred to and extracted above) clearlv indicates that stioma is attributed to the conduct of the oetitioner herein in the i mouqned order itself as exo lained at oara No.8 of the oresent iudoment.

S. J

This Court^oornes as borne on recor(, the^order rmouoned makes several alleoations a tainst the eti ner whic re matic AI g titioner and hence, tn view of the fa that no orior not lr^{:e hadbeen} iss ued the oetiti ner, this^{Cou rt} Olfil⁾ that he resoonde ts ar boun to follow th^{e CCARulr;, which} ad not been done^{in theDresentcase, theor([:rimouqned} adm ittedlv^{isin clear} violation of Drt ncipl^{g s of natural} iustice, s^rnce no charoe memo^h adb n ! ;sued to the Detitioner Drtor too ssinq the rder MD! qned dated 02.L2.202 b the 1't res nde

¶152

L7. Takin ant nsid tion

¶153

a) The aforesaid^{facts and circumstances3 f the case'}

¶154

The submissions^{made by thelea rned counsel} b) appearing on behalf^{of the petitioner and le a rned standing} counsel appearing^{on behalf of the respondtnt Nos' 1& 2'}

¶155

c) The contents^{of the order impugned {o' NITW/ID-} 94912122/3485, dated^{O2.t2.2O22 passe dby the 1't} respondent-( referred^{to and extractedabovr )}

¶156

¶157

SN. J

¶158

d) The observations of the varaous Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:-

2 5 15 c 51

ii)⁽²⁰ 13) 3S c6 7

2 5 c NL e 2 2

tv 20t sc On line TS 35 89

¶163

ts s n d n st a rr ed t a os

¶164

to 16 of the oresent order.

¶165

The wr t etition s all owed.t eorder amD uon ed 4 o2 5 a 1 2 2 bv th l"t resDOn en ts -a side, t e soondents herein are directedtorecon ider there u of the Detitioner for r tn w h n u b efi e of sa arv. se n toratv etc. in ac rd ance to law, asD er ti ner' ti m n n o of u w e fr m h da of t e r ta kin^q into ns deratio theo bse rvat ons ot the Aoex n e d m ts fr an ra o e n d n n h aa u

I I i I I

SN. J

th ition r o ver he s il n I order as^to

¶170

costs.

¶171

Miscellaneous^{petitions,ifany, pendinql in this Writ}

¶172

Petition, shall^{stand closed'}

¶173

¶174

SD/. A,S REENIVASA^REDDY ASS I EGISTRAR HN^OFFICER

¶175

,TRUE COPY//

¶176

The Chairperson'^{Board of Governors. afqgf:'gt!1ionallnstitute of} +h;;d;r;^{warrJngat,Hanumakonda 506004'Telarrlana State'}

¶177

;ico;u;;ors,^{National lnstitute or -echnolosv'} +;; ij[:il'B;;t wrrrZ"6ui,^{nr-"r.ukonda506004,TelanganaS.tate'}

¶178

The Secretary^{to GovernmJritot ln'Oi''Union of lndia'./linistrvof Human} Reso urce^{Development, (d$'';;;i;f-Fiigi';"i ed ;t' r o n )' Gbve rnmentof} lndia, New^Delhi.

¶179