- In the case of Minakshiben Laxmanbhai Paralia vs. State of Gujarat, the Hon’ble HC has held that an order of termination of employment while referring to an FIR, without departmental inquiry is bound to be stigmatic.
- In the instant case, the petitioner was an employee at the Gujarat Livelihood Promotion Company Ltd as a Taluka Manager on a contractual basis. The terms of his contract of employment stipulated that the employment can be terminated in case of misconduct, moral turpitude and cheating.
- In 2018, an FIR was filed against the petitioner and some other employees alleging financial irregularities. On this count, the employment of the petitioner was terminated.
- The Counsel for the petitioner argued that the same was a stigmatic termination, and was liable to be set aside. In support of his contention, he relied on a plethora of judgments, some of them being Union of India vs. Madhusudhan Prasad (2004)3 SCC and State of Gujarat vs. Rahul Aydanbhai Vank.
- The Counsel for the respondents, while alleging that the termination was not stigmatic, relied on the judgement of the Apex Court in Rajasthan State Roadways Transport Corporation vs. Paramjeet Singh (2019)SCC wherein it was held that the employment of an employee on a contractual basis can be terminated without notice.
- The Hon’ble HC observed that the primary issue is whether the termination could be termed as being stigmatic. To address this, the Court relied upon the decision in Niteshkumar Pradeepbhai Makwana vs. District Program Coordinator and Director where the Gujarat HC had held that the authority had concluded eagerly that the petitioners had indulged in financial irregularities and corrupt practices. This finding was arrived at without any departmental inquiry and was solely based on the FIR against the petitioners. The termination order was found to be based solely on the allegation of misconduct and thus was clearly stigmatic.
- The Court also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satvendra Nath Bose, Calcutta (AIR 1999 SC) where it was held that the words amounting to ‘stigma’ does not necessarily need to be contained in the order of termination but could be contained in an annexure and would vitiate the termination. In the instant case, the Court referred to the FIR annexed and the case filed against the petitioner and held that the termination thus became stigmatic.
- In light of the aforesaid contentions, the behc quashed the termination and held that the petitioner should be reinstated and a full departmental inquiry should be held.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
