United India Insurance Co.Ltd & 2 vs V M Vasant on 8 July, 2014
16), (v) Governing Council of Kidwai Memorial
Institute of Oncoloygy Banglore vs Pandurang
Godwalkar [AIR 1993 SC 692] (para 6 to 9), (vi)
Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs Union of India[AIR 1958 SC
36](para 26 to 28), (vii) Rajasthan State Road
Transport Corporation vs Zakir Hussain[(2005) 7 SCC
447],(para 24 to 33), viii) Smt. Charulataben M.
Gohil vs Surendranagar Joint Municipality [1982 GLH
Page 4 of 22
C/SA/85/2014 JUDGMENT
1090](para 19)
4.2 By pressing into service the above decisions,
learned advocate for the appellants elaborated that
merely because some preliminary inquiry was held, that
by itself would not make the order stigmatic. He
submitted that such inquiry was permissible to judge
the suitability of the employee for continuing him in
service. He submitted that reading of the termination
order did not suggest in any way that the same was
stigmatic or by way of a punitive action.