Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

Bombay High Court Defines Criteria to Determine Stigmatic Termination of Probationer’s Employment

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal decision, the Bombay High Court recently established clear parameters for identifying whether the termination of a probationer’s employment is punitive or stigmatic. The judgment, delivered by Hon’ble Justice Avinash G. Gharote, outlines essential factors to consider, offering guidance to employers and employees in similar cases.

The court’s observations shed light on the complexity of determining whether a termination order carries stigma beyond mere unsuitability for the job. The judge emphasized the importance of language used in the termination letter and evaluated the probationer’s performance, communications, and opportunities for improvement.

Justice Gharote stated, The language of the termination letter must be carefully scrutinized to ascertain whether it imputes anything beyond the probationer’s unsuitability for the job. The distinction between foundation and motive for termination is crucial, as the true reasons behind the termination may not always be explicitly stated.”

The judgment also delves into the role of enquiries conducted before termination, distinguishing between misconduct and unsuitability as grounds for termination. It highlights that an enquiry’s outcome can influence the nature of the termination and whether it carries a stigma.

Summarizing the decision, Justice Gharote concluded, In cases where a probationer’s services are terminated due to unsatisfactory performance and suitability concerns, without explicit imputation of misconduct, the termination cannot be deemed punitive or stigmatic.”

This ruling provides valuable clarity to the legal landscape surrounding the termination of probationers and underscores the significance of language, context, and fairness in such matters. Employers and employees alike are likely to find this judgment a crucial reference point in navigating similar situations in the future.  

Date of Decision: 11 August 2023

Sushind Kisan Rathod VS   Rajashree Shahu Science College

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/Sushind_Kisan_Rathod_vs_Rajashree_Shahu_Science_College_on_11_August_2023_BomHC.pdf"]

Latest Legal News