Punitive Termination Order Requires Opportunity Of Hearing To Be Given Even In Case Of A Probationer: Madras HC

The Madras High Court observed that once a termination order becomes innocuous or punitive in nature, then it is necessary to give the opportunity of hearing, even if it is a case of a probationer.

The bench of Justice L Victoria Gowri observed, "If the order of termination is tilted in such a way as to point out specific irregularities/illegalities warranting enquiry even if it is a case of the probationer then the said order of termination would be considered innocuous or punitive in nature. Once the termination order becomes innocuous or punitive in nature, in character, in such a case, it is necessary to give an opportunity of hearing, even if it is a probationer."

Senior Counsel Issac Mohanlal appeared for the petitioner. Senior Counsel Sathish Parasaran, Senior Counsel Ajmal Khan and Counsel VR Shanmuganathan appeared for the respondents.

In this case, the Writ Petition was filed challenging the termination orders issued against the petitioner.

The petitioner urged the court to direct the management to reinstate him as an Assistant Professor at Bharathidasan Institute of Management, Trichy, with all associated benefits.

The petitioner, holding a Ph.D. in Marketing, had substantial industrial and teaching experience before joining. Despite a satisfactory recommendation by the Selection Committee, he received an unexpected termination during his probation on 07.07.2023, citing unsatisfactory service based on undisclosed complaints. The petitioner refuted the allegations, submitted a detailed reply, and made several representations, ultimately leading to the filing of this writ petition.

The Court observed that it was quite certain that even if his service was unsatisfactory, the power of termination has to be exercised only by the Board of Governors of BIM that too without causing stigma on the probationer and the order of termination necessarily has to be addressed positively attributing to the fact that his service has been far from what was expected from him in the capacity of Assistant Professor in the performance of his duty.

In light of the same, the Court held that, "the impugned orders are bad and per se illegal since the same has emanated from the desk of Director/third respondent contrary to the Service Rules of BIM".

Subsequently, the Court quashed the impugned order of termination on grounds of jurisdiction alone and remanded the matter to the Board of Governers for appropriate action.

Cause Title: Dr CNS Ramnath Babu vs The Registrar, Bharathidasan University & Ors.

Click here to read/download the Judgment