Dr. Sachin Bapusaheb Khandagle v. 'l . Chairperson

It is further the case of the petitioner the - the impugned order was issued without a charge memo, witt out an enquiry' and without affording any opportunity, in 1( tal violation of principles of natural justice, the First Statutl;, and the CCS J SN, J (CCA) Rules, 1965. No adverse remarks were communicated to the petitioner herein, no assessment procedure for probation was followed, and several allegations-such as complaints by unnamed persons, issues relating to ph.D. application, possession of licensed firearms, and a police comptaint-were either false, irrelevant, or incapable of constituting misconduct. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the present writ petition challenging the impugned Proceedings/Order No. NITW/ID- 949/2022/3485 dated O2.t2.2022 passed by the 1st Respondent and also seeking consequential reinstatement with arrears, seniority, all service benefits and for protection from eviction from Quarter No.812/4 pending disposal of the writ petition. After filing the present writ petition, the respondents produced the Minutes of the 59th Meeting of the Board of Governors (BOG) dated 24.02.2023, which purported to ratify the termination retrospectively. Later, this Court through its order dated

03.01.2024 in I.A. No.3 of 2023 in the present Writ petition, the petitioner amended the prayer to also seek quashing of the said BOG Resolutions.

4. PERUSED THE R ECORD. e, 4 \N, J A The r r imo oned No. NITW/ID-9 49/2022t3485. dated O2.12. 2022 oassed bv th e 1tt soonde nt rse racted hereun er:

13. AND WHEREAS owing to his erratic z r d belligerent attitude, the functioning of the Institute He;rl h Centre has come to a stand-still. He has spent cons i lerable office hours for the benefit of his personal issue:; which would otherwise could have been utilized for : e benefit of Institute; 14. AND WHEREAS the official claims to f i ve a licensed revolver and has been moving in the canl rus displaying the same without the permission of Estate )fficer or "the local police. The Kazipet Police have c( nfiscated two weapons from his residence on dt.01.12.20'l l;

15. AND WHEREAS having done the aforerlentioned acts and realizing that his continuation on a( ( cunt of grave misconducts has become untenable, the off :ial has filed a mala fide complaint on with the Commis:;i )ner of Police, Warangal with copy marked to the (azipet Police Ot.D.rO2z against the Director and R( gistrar of the Institute that they are threatening him i bout dismissal from service; 16. AND WHEREAS the aforesaid circurr jtances clearly show that the official has scant regard lt the rules and reg ulations of the Institute nor to the offi': )rs to whom he f ultimatum, he is reporting. With his tlr : No Objection threatened the officers Certificate for admission to Ph'D. which is inpermissible as per rules and created unrest and unhealttl atmosphere in the Institute in general at Institute l-l':alth Centre in particular. ue subhitted numerous mes:;i ges to multiple authorities on the same issue bypassing the prescribed channel displaying total insubordination; 17. AND WHEREAS the Institute and its :mployees have suffered on account of the misconduct of : e oificial' Owing expression to issue him o 5 SN. J to various representations bypassing the hierarchy and his threats, the functioning and reputation of the Institute has been severely suffered and vitiated the working environment in the Institute. He has created a fear psychosis among the employees by threatening to use his force and weapons. NIT Warangal-being a premier Institution of National Importance, it should have a free and fair work environment where people can function effectively and productively;

18. AND WHEREAS considering the fact that the officiat joined the Institute in the month of May, 2022, the series of misconducts exhibited by him during the short span of six months, that too during the period of probation, the official proved himself to be a liability and unfit person to be retained in service,

19.AND WHEREAS as per Clause (2) of the terms and conditions of his appointment. you will be on probation For a period of one year. During the period of probation, your services are liable to be terminated without assigning any reason and notice";

20. NOW, THEREFORE, in exercise of the powers conferred as Chairperson, Board of Governors and Director of the Institute, the undersigned hereby terminates the services of Maj. Dr. Khandagale Sachin Bapusaheb, with immediate effect, in terms of clause (2) of the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment dt.06.05.2022 DISC SSION AN D CONLCUSION:- 5 Lea ned counsel a DDea ra n on behalf of the Detiti ner mainlv puts-fort h the followanq submiss IOnS:- 6 SN, J i) The impugned order, dated O2.12'2Oll I issued by the 1't respondent is contrary to Iaw i nd violates of Articles L4, L6 and 21 of the Cor stitution of India. ii) The impugned order is without iurisdit tion iii) The impugned order is stigmatic. iv) The order impugned order is conl:r ary to first statute of the institute. v) The order impugned is contrary to 'espondents' own regulations. Based on the aforesa id submiss ij ons, learned Ia oearl no on behalf of the Det tll ler, contends ) counse rder, da ted O2.L2.2 ( 22 has to be that the im uoned set-aside nd th oetiti oner ls entitled ft)' the relief as ! writ oetition. oraved for bv the oetitio ner in the Dresen 6 Lear eds ndinq couns I aooe arlr1r on behalf of 2 lairlv admits :hat the order os.1 the resDO imo oned is stiomati c. but however imDr ses u n exola ininq th e crrcum stance wh ch led to e 7 stn of d .12.2 the lst resoondent herein. SN. J b Th n extracted ereund er: - (i) Whether the Respondent has got any power or jurisdiction to terminate the service of this petitioner? (ii) Whether the impugned order passed by the Respondent terminating the services of this petitioner during the period of probation is stigmatic and whether it is sustainable in law? _(iii) Whether the impugned order is violative of principles of natural justice in as much as no opportunity was given to this petitioner before passing such an order?

8.A bare oeru al oft he ord r rmDu qned, dated ltt r

2.2 2 n the order i mouonedisst o matic. st ce it is observ din the tmDuqn ed orderasun er:- n w t f h n e me to a stand stil!. n ai) The official i.e.. t e Detita oner herein has scant sof h e ul n r tot e officerstowhom oe t roner is reDo tno. 8 SN, J ii i) Th officer h as created he em t ns. afearD cl )sis amonq ! s forcea nd 1 at ntn iv) Th off unfit oerson toberetai ned in se rvice. b a _ iabilitv and Th sCo rt oD nes thata ll the above ot1 ;ervations in ,i ssed bv the o

2.L rd rrm n d s nt m cord and v 1"t even as admitted fairlv bv the leal ted counsel lre stiq matic a eventua I Iv effecti oon the f ture of thED! titioner. o beh fof s o J il e a u lnv wo he a llnf ecord that the order imouqned oassed bv the 1't restl- lndent' dated 02.L 2.2o22, did not mention anv oft e -:ircumstances whichl edtothe oassinqoft he said orde r nines that the n :nc f, I n b reft u nable. 1O. The Aoex Court in the iudoment' da!ed 15'1O'2015 ndira Ga ndhi c ces. Patna, Bih r nd Ot R t Institute of M dical S m h d I 9 SN. J reoorted in ( 2()15) 15 SCC 151 and at oara Nos.17 and 26 are observed as u nder: -

17. This Court in Radhey Shyam Gupta case noticed that there are two lines of authorities. In certain cases of temporary servants and probationers, it had taken the view that if the ex_ parte enquiry or report is the motive for the termination order, then the termination is not to be called punitive merely because the principles of natural justice have not been followed; and in the other line of decisions, this Court has ruled that if the facts revealed in the enquiry are not the motive but the foundation for the termination of the services of the temporary Servant or probationer, it would be punitive and principles of natural justice are bound to be followed and failure to do so would make the order legally unsound. The Court dgments rendered in Samsher Singh (supra), nqra vs. Union of India t6l, State of Bih a r VS. d t7l and tate of Orissa vs Ram N ra anD tBl and, ev entually, opined that if there was any di was "m otive" or "foundation" even a fter the the said doubts were removed in Guia rat Steel T UbES Ltd. vs. Guiarat Steel Tubes M azdoor Sabha iel. The clarification given by the Constitution Bench in the said ca se, being instructive, the two- Judge Bench reproduced the same, which we think we should do:- referred to the ju Parshotam Lal Dhi fficulty as to what Samsher Singh's i Kishore Prasa Gon "26........53. Masters and servants cannot be permitted to play hide and seek with the law of dismissals and the plain and proper criteria are not to be misdirected by terminological cover-ups or by appeal to psychic processes but must be grounded on the substantive reason for the order, whether disclosed or undisclosed. The Court will find out from other proceedings or documents connected with the formal order of termination what the true ground for the termination is. If, thus scrutinised, the order has a punitive flavour in cause or consequence, it is dismissal. If it falls short oF this test, it cannot be called a punishment. To put it slighfly differently, a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the consequent desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under [he l0 SN. ] standing order or otherwise. Whether, in su r h a case the groundi are recorded in a different procee( ing from the iormal order does not detract from its natur: Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the m'r ter abandons the enquiry and proceeds to terminate Gi'r:n an alleged misconduc[ and a live nexus between it and the termination of service the conclusion is-disr rissal, even if full benefits as on simple termination, are (l ven and non- injurious terminologY is used. 54. On the contrary, even if there is; suspicion of misconduct the master may say that he dtl:s not wish to bother about it and may not 9o into his guil . but may feel like not keeping a man he is not happy wic r' He may not like to investigJte nor take the risk of conti 1 iing a dubious servant. Then it is not dismissal but termine 1 on simpliciter, if no injurious record of reasons or punitivo pecuniary cut- back on his full terminal benefits is foun< ' For, in fact, misconduct is not then the moving factor i'r the discharge' We need not chase other hypothetical situat cns here "

26. In the facts of Palak Modi case, the Cotr t proceeded to state that there is a marked distinction between 'he concepts of satisfactory completion of probation and succe: sful passing of itre trainingTtest held during or at the end ol the period of -which are sine qua non for co-t 'irmation of a probation, probationer and the Bank's right to punish a pr() )ationer for any defined misconduct, misbehaviour or misdemear our' In a given case, the competent authority may, while deciri ng the issue of irituOiritv of the probationer to be confirmed, igrl )re the act(s) of misconductandterminatehisservicewithrlltcastingany aspersion or stigma which may adversely ;r fect his future pioip".t, but, if ihe misconduct/misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision taken by the comperi 3nt authority to lbeit by a non- dispense with the service of the probationer stigmatic order, the Court can lift the veil a id declare that e olo er has minati on srm liciter int he oarb of ter oun ished the emolovee f ra na of mrscor ! luct. th, :l e

11. The oex Cou rt in the iudomen d: ed 03.1 2.20 1,2 I p ate Bank of India & others Vs Pa la k Modi and SN. J o din 2 1 s 7 n oara Nos. 1 6. 17& 2 observ das un er: -

16. In State of Puniab and an ther v. Sukh Rai Bahadur (1968) 3 SCR 2 34, Mitter, l. considered several precedents and culled out the following propositions: *1. The services of a temporary servant or a probationer can be terminated under the rules of his employment and such termination without anything more would not attract the operation of Article 311 of the Constitution. 2. The circumstances preceding or attendant on the order of termination have to be examined in each case, the motive behind it being immaterial. v h cha racter or inteq ritv it mus beconsadered tobe one bv wav of ounis hment, no matter wheth rhe was a mere D bationer or a tem orarv servant. r erv If th n n n

4. An order of termination of service in unexceptionable form preceded by an enquiry launched by the superior authorities only to ascertain whether the public servant should be retained in service does not attract the operation of Article 311 of th e Constitution.

5. If there be a full-scale departmental enquiry envisaged e 311 i.e. an Enquiry Officer is appointed, a by A submitted, explanation called for and charge-sheet considered, any order of termination of service made thereafter will attract the operation of the said article.,, 17_- In State of Bihar v. Shiva Bhikshuk Mishra (tg7}) 2 SCC 871, the three Judge Bench considered the question whether the respondent's reversion from the post of Subedar-Major to that of Sergeant in the backdrop of an inquiry made into the allegation of assault on his subordinate was punitive. On behalf oF the appellant, reliance was also placed on the judgments in State of Puniab v. Sukh Rai Bahadur su pra )and Union of India v. ( l2 SN. J R. S. Dhaba .Income-ta x Officer, Hosh ra rou r, e6e (3) SCC 603 and it was arg ued that the order of re'z rrsion cannot be treated as Puniti ve because it did not corrl ain any word of stigma and the High Court committed an error bY relying upon the inquiry conducted by the Cc' r rmandant for the conclusion that the order of eversion was coming to While rejecting the contentiorr this Court punitive. observed: We are unable to accede to the contention cl the appellant ecrsl n is that s: long as there that the ratio of the abov are no express words of stigma attributed tc he conduct of a Government Offlcer in the impugned ord: - it cannot be held to have been made by way of punishmr: )t The test as previously laid and which was relied on w I ; whether the misconduct or negligence was a mere moti\/ ifor the order oF reversion or whether it was the very fot- r dation of that order. In Dhaba case, it was not found th: the order of reversion was based on misconduct or ne( ligence of the officer. So far as we are aware no such ri! i J principle has ever been laid down bv this court that one - ls only to look to the order and if it does not contain an) imputation of misconduct or words attaching a stigma to t le character or reputation of a Government Officer it must l'e held to have been made in the ordinary course of admir i ;trative routine and the court is debarred from looking at it lthe attendant circumstances to discover whether the ')-der had been made by way of punishment. The form of I he order is not conclusive of its true nature and it might nt :rely be a cloak or camouflage for an order founded on mi:; onduct' It may be that an order which is innocuous on tl- t face and does not contain any imputation of misconduct is a circumstance or a piece of evidence for finding whether t was made by way of punishment or administrative r( utine' But the entlrety of circumstances preceding or u ltendant on the impugned order must be examined and tl r overriding test will always be whether the misconduct is 'l mere motive or is the veiy foundation of the order." (emph rsis supplied) 25. The ratio of the above noted jud'] nents is that a probationer has no right to hold the post and his service can be terminated at any time during or . t the end of the l3 S\. J period of probation on account of general unsuitability for the post held by him. If the competent authority holds an rnquiry for judging the suitability of the probationer or for his further continuance in service or for confirmation and such inquiry is the basis for taking decision to terminate his service, then the action of the com petent authority can not be castigated as punitive. -However, if the ationof mrscon duct consti tutes the founda ron Itim t fv ati of h e m k Ii ra! b t2. Th u a

9.1 o2 sed i Ravi r V in2 OnLine fJh kha 192 ndi a r Dara Nos.38 and 39 observed as und er: - nden ts ha 38 Since the res hio hhand d. t iustifiabl e reaso n and also followino due orocess. the o als set aside. act din a rat ille al m a nner !t arbitrar e v! t r n e a h s

39. The appellants Ravi and prem Lal been in continuous service right from the date(s) of their original shall be treated to have appointment (December, 2}lr, as if their services were never terminated. They shall be entiHed to service benefits like arrears of pay in full and seniority counted from the dates of initial appointment. However, for the purpose of meeting the experience criterion for promotion, the period not spent on duty will not be counted. The rationale behind this direction is that practical . of teaching is gained through imparting of experience lessons to the students. Thercannot, thus] be held to have acquired experience without hands_on work. Though the appellants are not at fault, we have attempted to suitabty compensate them by awarding full arrears of pay. I4 SN. 1

13. This cou rt in its iud ment, dated Oar 09, 2O19 in oo ed in 2 19 Vs. S ate of Telanoana N.G oDal SCC Onli neTS3 589 a datoara Nos. 1Oa nd - 1 observed rish na L as n der: - -have

10. This Court, having considered the rival :'r bmissions, is of the considered view that the impugn€ r termination order issued vide G.O.Rt.No.420, date'l 21'05'2019 admittedly causes certain stigma touchir I upon the competence of the petitioner, as the resl) )ndents have ,sed expressions such as arrogant, i' lFficient and unproduciive in his work. However, it is ttl be seen that beiore issuing the impugned terminati()r order, the issued appreciation I€ tters to the respondents petitioner, which go to show that the I aid stigmatic observations are made at the instance of ihe complaint made by the defacto-com pla inant and the - lmarks of one IPS Officer. When the respondents are caL: ing stigma on the competency oF the petitioner, they ( ught to have conducted an enquiry, at least by givintl a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to defend hiri case' But' no such effort is made by the respondents 31d hence, the action oF the respondents in terminating thtl services of the petitioner without giving any opportunity-tc rim is contrary to law as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Corl 't in the cases' referred to su P ra. 11. rf o But terminated the termin ation order issued vide G ble to be se 21.05. 2(JL9 is lia slde wi acc rdinolv set t ondents to con nue the oeti Publi c Pro ec to with il cons r a co pletion of his ten ure i.e., the e t .j erm inate the U oht to have g n simolicitor. r tnd nts have rvices of the Deti oner ca uslno t The e re - he imouqned .O.Rti No.42O dated as,j le and it is dir e ction to the Ad itron al lon€ uen I al ben fits till r t case. 1'l a e t e s l5 SN. J

2019. With the above observataons, the writ oetition is allow ed. No order as to costs. L4. Learned standino counsel aooearino on be alf of the resDondentNos.l&2 cont nds that in view of the fact e tati n rw t e t r therefore as oer the terms of the order of the aooointment issued in favour of the Detitioner herein, the services of the Detitaoner could be termanated without qivinq anv notrce since there is no reouirement under la to issue notice.

15. This Court oDines that the said olea is not tenable and is reiecte in view of the clear observations in the d men t Co rt referr x c above) whi h verv clearlv indicate that t e orinciole of ssarilv followed rtem needs to be audi alterem before anv adverse order is oassed, which imooses stioma uDon the Detit oner. A bare oerusal of the order imouoned (referred to and extracted above) clearlv indicates that stioma is attributed to the conduct of the oetitioner herein in the i mouqned order itself as exo lained at oara No.8 of the oresent iudoment. (- l6 S\. J

16. This Court oornes as bo oned makes several all on recor(, the orde r s a tainst eoation ner whic AI hence, tn v iew of the fa the oetiti ner, that no orior not this Cou rt Olfil ) g titioner and :e had been boun to follow the CCA Rulr resoonde ts ar not been done in the Dresent case, the or([:r imouqned tion of Drt ncipl g s of natural adm ittedlv is in clear ;sued to the ;, which ad adb n ! iustice, srnce no charoe memo h too ssinq the Detitioner Drtor MD!

02.L2.202 b the 1't res Takin ant L7. a) The aforesaid facts and circumstances 3 f the case' b) The submissions made by the lea rned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and le a rned standing counsel appearing on behalf of the respondt nt Nos' 1& 2' c) The contents of the order impugned {o' NITW/ID- 94912122/3485, dated O2.t2.2O22 passe d by the 1't respondent-( referred to and extracted abovr ) I I i t7 SN. J d) The observations of the varaous Courts in the judgments (referred to and extracted above) and again enlisted below:- 2 5 15 c 51 ii) (20 13) 3S c6 7 2 5 c NL e 2 tv 20t sc On line TS 35 89 2 s n to 16 of the oresent order. d n a ed t a os The wr t etit s all owed.t eorder amD uon ed 4 a 5 o2 bv th l"t resDOn en ts are di rectedtorecon ider there u r tn w h n u -a ide, t e s of sa arv. se n tor etc. in ac ti ner' ti m n 1 2 2 soondents herein of the Detitioner for b e rd ance to law, asD er n o of u r the Aoex o e u w e fr m h da ta kin q into ns deratio t e theo bse rvat ons ot n e d m ts n d n n h I I i I I l8 SN. J r o s n I order as to costs. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pendinql in this Writ Petition, shall stand closed ' SD/. A,S REENIVASA REDDY EGISTRAR ASS I ,TRUE COPY// HN OFFICER The Chairperson' Board of Governors. afqgf:'gt!1 ional lnstitute of +h;;d;r; warrJngat, Hanumakonda 506004' Telarrl ana State' ;ico;u;;ors, National lnstitute or -echnolosv' +;; ij[:il'B;;t wrrrZ"6ui, nr-"r.ukonda 506004, Telangana S.tate' The Secretary to GovernmJrit ot ln'Oi'' Union of lndia'. /linistrv of Human Reso urce Develo pment, (d$'';;;i;f-Fiig i';"i ed ;t' r o n )' Gbve rnment of lndia, New Delhi. The Secretary to Government' Union of lndia' Minislr/ :f Home Affairs' c"r"--.i''ii 6r'tniir, No.tft Block , New Delhi-1 1000 r lndia' il; Cc'i; bR. xrnksnvrr runnnSlMHA, Advocate [ )PUCI 5;; aa io snr n.aruunnG, Advocate [oPUc] - .. -One CC to SRI N.BHUJANTA FiAO,.DEFUTVSOI ; TOR GENERAL OF lNDlA, Advocate (OPUC) Two CD CoPies To

5. 6. 7. B. SA TKS M C.C.TODAY 1 ,A :J ,|Q r)R 202[ 7z P ...tl HIGH COURT DATED:2711112025 ORDER WP.No.44481 of 2022 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. D\ 4 '^ \0