REGISTRAR GENERAL vs JAYSHREE CHAMANLAL BUDDHBHATTI

The Supreme Court held that the termination of the respondent's services as a Civil Judge was stigmatic and violated Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, which mandates that an employee must be informed of the charges against them and given an opportunity to be heard. The Court found that the respondent was not afforded these basic procedural safeguards, thus overturning the Gujarat High Court's decision that deemed the termination non-stigmatic. The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent's reinstatement was ordered.