Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

He is directed to hand over the charge of almirah within three days from the date of issue of this letter."

36. A bare perusal of the aforementioned order shows that Respondent No.2 was dismissed on account of an alleged act of cheating the School Authorities as well as the Government, by invoking prevalent Rules under the DSE Act. It is evidently not a case of termination of service of a probationer on account of unsatisfactory performance. The order, in my view, is indeed a stigmatic order, as held by the Tribunal and rightly contended by learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.2. The law on termination of services of a probationer, other than on account of unsatisfactory performance, is no longer res integra. In Dipti Prakash Banerjee (supra), the issue before the Supreme Court was an order of termination of a probationer and one of the questions under consideration was, under what circumstances an order of termination of a probationer can be said to be punitive, i.e., founded on misconduct. The Supreme Court also delved into when an order can be termed as stigmatic and held that where the order is based on a misconduct and is 'founded' on allegations, it cannot be termed as an order of termination simpliciter and a stigmatic order passed without conducting an inquiry, will be vitiated. Relevant para of the judgment is as under:-