Case Summary: Termination Order Appeal – Supreme Court Verdict

In a recent case before the Supreme Court of India, the matter of a termination order appeal was brought forward. The court analyzed the termination of services of a temporary employee and evaluated claims of jurisdictional violations and lack of natural justice. The case involved a dispute regarding unsatisfactory work performance in the academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001. Stay tuned for a detailed overview of the Supreme Court’s decision on this crucial legal matter.


  • Petitioner’s appeal against termination order was filed before College Tribunal under Section 59 of Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994
  • Presiding Officer of College Tribunal dismissed the appeal
  • Leave has been granted for further proceedings
  • Original Name was appointed as a Lecturer of Home Economics on ad-hoc basis
  • Termination of services was based on unsatisfactory performance in academic years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001
  • Termination occurred before completion of the probation period, triggering the issue of stigma
  • Division Bench found the order of termination not innocent, leading to the appeal outcome

Also Read: Property Inheritance Dispute: The Legacy of Chhotabhai Ashabhai Patel


  • The petitioner argued that the order passed against him was without jurisdiction, violative of principles of natural justice, and without application of mind.
  • He contended that the order was passed in a mechanical manner without considering the relevant facts and legal provisions.
  • The petitioner claimed that he was not given a proper opportunity to present his case and that the order was arbitrary and unjust.
  • He further argued that the order was based on wrong assumptions and misinterpretation of facts.
  • The petitioner sought the court’s intervention to set aside the order and provide him with relief.

Also Read: Lt. Col. Om Dutt Sharma vs. Ministry of Defence: OROP Entitlement for Army Postal Service Personnel


  • The termination of the services of a temporary or probationary employee based on adverse entries or unsatisfactory work is not punitive but a decision on retention.
  • The appointment of the individual in question was ad-hoc, not probationary, with the management’s right to terminate based on unsatisfactory work during this period.
  • The termination order stated unsatisfactory work without any stigma, indicating it was a simple termination.
  • The language in the termination order mentioned unsatisfactory work and conduct, not punitive reasons.
  • A charge-sheet is for detailing allegations to allow the employee to respond effectively, not for punitive measures.
  • In the case of Ram Narayan Das, the assessment for termination is not based on finding misconduct but on overall performance.
  • Preliminary inquiry’s purpose is to determine prima facie evidence for regular departmental inquiry, not for finding misconduct.
  • Even if a regular departmental inquiry is initiated and then dropped without findings, termination is not punitive.
  • Termination based on unsatisfactory work is a motive, not a foundation for termination.
  • Comments on work performance cannot be the sole basis for setting aside termination of an ad-hoc employee.
  • The order of termination in the case in question is not stigmatic according to precedents.
  • Termination without established guilt can be a benefit to the employee to avoid career stigma.
  • Allegations that raise a cloud on conduct can justify termination without stigma.
  • Inquiry to assess fitness for probation is not necessarily punitive.
  • Termination is considered punitive if a full-scale formal enquiry into misconduct culminates in a finding of guilt.
  • An employer has the right to ensure the competence of a probationer before confirming their service.
  • The order passed by the Division Benchof the High Court is deemed legally unsustainable.
  • Disciplinary action following a regular inquiry is not pertinent to the termination of an employee hired on an ad-hoc basis.

Also Read: Financial Capacity and Specific Performance: A Landmark Judgment by the Supreme Court Of India


  • The same is set aside.
  • The appeal is allowed.
  • No costs.


Case Number: C.A. No.-006226-006226 / 2019

Click here to read/download original judgement

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *