Judgment : Oral Judgment: Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner has challenged the order of the Presiding Officer, University & College Tribunal, Nagpur dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of her termination dated 20.2.2001. 2. The respondent no.1 and 2 had published an advertisement on 9.6.1999 calling applications for appointment on the post of Full Time Lecturer in the subject of Home Economics. Petitioner had applied for the post of Lecturer in Home Economics and was selected on the said post. The appointment order was issued to the petitioner on 24.9.1999. The appointment of the petitioner was purely temporary and it was mentioned in the appointment order that the services of the petitioner would be terminated at any time during the temporary services without any notice, in case the performance of the petitioner was not found to be satisfactory. The University granted approval to the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lecturer on 10.1.2000. The services of the petitioner were, however, terminated by order dated 20.2.2001. The termination order mentioned that the services of the petitioner during the academic session 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were found to be unsatisfactory. The termination order was based on the resolution of the Managing Committee dated 16.2.2001. The petitioner challenged the order dated 20.2.2001 terminating her services before the Presiding Officer University & College Tribunal, Nagpur in an appeal under section 59 of the Maharashtra University Act 1994. The Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Nagpur by its judgment dated 17.7.2001 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner. The said order dated 17.7.2001 is impugned in the instant petition. 3. Shri Borkar, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal was not justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the petitioner, as the order dated 20.2.2001 terminating the services of the petitioner was stigmatic. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that it was necessary for the respondent no.1 & 2 to hold a full-fledged enquiry against the petitioner before terminating her services. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of termination, dated 20.2.2001 referred to the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and the same was also enclosed along with termination order. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the order of termination, dated 20.2.2001 referred to the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and the same was also enclosed along with termination order. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resolution dated 16.2.2001 referred to a report furnished by the Principal of the college and this report mentioned more than 10 allegations levelled against the petitioner. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner a combined reading of the report of the Principal of the Institution dated 8.2.2001, the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and the termination order dated 20.2.2001 clearly show that the order was punitive in nature and was stigmatic. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision of the Hon. Supreme Court reported in AIR 1999 SC 983 [Dipti Prakash Banerjee ..vs.. Satvendra Nath Bose NationalCentre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others] to substantiate his submission that though the material which amounts to stigma is not contained in the order of termination, the same can be contained in any document referred in the termination order or in its annexures. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the resolution was one of the annexures supplied to the petitioner along with termination order dated 20.2.2001 and the resolution made a reference to the report dated 8.2.2001 and a combined reading of these documents showed that the order was punitive in nature and it was necessary for the respondent no.1 and 2 to hold an enquiry against the petitioner. 4. Shri Anand Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respondents no.1 to 3 supported the order passed by the Presiding Officer on 17.7.2001 and submitted that the order of termination was not at all stigmatic as it merely mentioned about the unsatisfactory performance by the petitioner during the probation period. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 submitted that it was necessary for the management to have satisfied itself about the performance of the petitioner during the probation period and hence the enquiry was made at their level to consider this aspect. It is then submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 that it is necessary for the court to consider the termination order itself for deciding whether the order is stigmatic. It is then submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 that it is necessary for the court to consider the termination order itself for deciding whether the order is stigmatic. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 relied on the decision reported in 2003 (1) Mh.L.J. 90 [Usha Ramchandra Mule ..vs.. Presiding Officer] in this regard. Learned counsel further relied on the decision reported in 2002 (1) ALL MR 302 [Pavanendra Narayan Verma ..vs.. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences & another] to canvass that the preliminary enquiry held by the management prior to the order of termination to satisfy itself about the performance of the probationer would not turn the otherwise innocuous order of termination into one of punishment. Relying on the aforesaid decisions, it was submitted on behalf of the respondent no.1 and 2 that an employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of the probationer and in such circumstances, the report was called by the respondent no.1 and 2 in this case from the Principal of the College. The learned counsel for the respondent no.1 and 2 sought for the dismissal of the writ petition. 5. Shri Anand Deshpande, learned AGP for the respondent no.4 also sought for the dismissal of the writ petition by supporting the order passed by the Presiding Officer, College Tribunal, Nagpur on 17.7.2001. It is submitted on behalf of the respondent no.4 that the order of termination dated 20.2.2001 is an innocuous order and does not cast any stigma on the petitioner. The order of termination merely states that the services of the petitioner were found to be unsatisfactory and in the facts of the case the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and also perused the relevant documents along with the judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the parties. It is necessary to note that the order of termination is an apparently innocuous order as it merely states that the services of the petitioner during the academic session 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 were found to be unsatisfactory. The order of termination merely makes a reference to the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and a copy of the resolution is annexed with the termination order. The order of termination merely makes a reference to the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001 and a copy of the resolution is annexed with the termination order. The resolution dated 16.2.2001 resolves that the services of the petitioner were liable to be terminated in view of her unsatisfactory performance. Though this resolution makes a reference to the report furnished by the Principal, the report dated 8.2.2001 discloses that it was called for by the management from the Principal of the College. The report merely speaks about the nonperformance of the duties by the petitioner in a satisfactory manner. It is observed in the report by the Principal that the services of the petitioner were not satisfactory and the conduct of the petitioner in performance of her duties was not in the interest of the institution. It was necessary for the management to conduct the preliminary enquiry at their level to consider and satisfy itself about the competence of the petitioner and see whether the petitioner could be confirmed in service. In the instant case the material which amounts to stigma is neither contained in the termination order nor in the resolution of the managing committee dated 16.2.2001. The resolution dated 16.2.2001, annexed with the termination order dated 20.2.2001 does not contain any material which amounts to stigma. It can not be said that the report of the Principal should be looked into, as the same was called by the respondent no.1 and 2 from the Principal merely with a view to satisfy itself about the competence of the petitioner to hold the post. Judgment reported in AIR 1991 SC Page 983 [Dipti Prakash Banerjee ..vs.. Satvendra Nath Bose NationalCentre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others] can not be made applicable to the facts of this case. In fact the judgments reported in 2002(1) ALL MR 302 [Pavanendra Narayan Verma ..vs.. Sanjay Gandhi P.G.I. of Medical Sciences & another] and 2003 (1) Mh.L.J.90 [Usha d/o Ramchandra Mule ..vs.. Presiding Officer] support the case of the respondent no.1 and 2 to a great extent. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as the order of termination or the resolution / annexure to the same, were not stigmatic. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, before her termination. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner as the order of termination or the resolution / annexure to the same, were not stigmatic. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no necessity to conduct an enquiry against the petitioner, before her termination. The Tribunal has rightly observed that the employer had every right to terminate the services of the petitioner during the probation period, without holding any enquiry specially when no stigma was attached to the petitioner by passing the order of termination dated 20.2.2001. 7. In the result the petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.