- Case
- SUSHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 28-02-2025)
- Law
- N/A, Writ Petition.
Facts: Sushil Kumar Srivastava, formerly Airport Director of Shirdi Airport, was terminated from service. He challenged this termination, arguing that he was deemed permanent after his probation period was repeatedly extended without a formal order of confirmation or disengagement. A complaint by Ms. Bhosale, a proprietor of counters at the airport, alleging serious misconduct, led to a show-cause notice. The termination order cited his unsatisfactory performance and behavior.
Procedural Posture: The case originated as a Writ Petition (L) No.21711 of 2023 in the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, challenging the termination order. An interim application (L) No.8024 of 2024 was also filed.
Issue: 1. Was the termination of the Petitioner valid, considering the extensions of his probation period and the lack of a formal confirmation or disengagement order? 2. Did the termination order amount to a stigmatic termination, requiring a Departmental Enquiry? 3. Is the Petitioner entitled to back wages?
Holding: The High Court allowed the Writ Petition, quashing the termination order and reinstating the Petitioner with continuity of service. The Court also awarded 60% back wages to the Petitioner.
Reasoning: The Court found that the Employer's actions were flawed because, despite extending the probation period, no formal order was issued to either confirm his service or disengage him after the extended period. The Court also noted that the termination order was stigmatic because it leveled allegations against the Petitioner without conducting a Departmental Enquiry, violating principles established in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors. The Court held that the principle of "no work - no wages" was inapplicable because the Petitioner was willing to work but was prevented from doing so by the Employer. The court balanced the equities by granting 60% back wages, considering the stigmatic termination and involuntary unemployment suffered by the Petitioner.
