Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 3704
DELHI HIGH COURT
Pradeep Nandrajog, Pratibha Rani, JJ.
Cook Suresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Resopndent
W.P. (C) 8114 of 2013
Decided On : 19-02-2015
For the Respondent Nos. 1 to 6:Mr. Rajesh Gogna and Ms. Silky Luthra, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between a discharge simplicitor and a punitive termination of a probationer's services, emphasizing the need for a full-fledged inquiry to prove guilt and the implications of termination based on misconduct, negligence, or inefficiency.
Headnote:
Termination - Probation - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Summary of Acts and Sections: Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - The judgment discusses the termination of a probationer's services and the legal framework surrounding probation and termination. It highlights the employer's right to terminate a probationer's services, the distinction between a discharge simplicitor and a punitive termination, and the impact of termination on the probationer's future prospects. The judgment also references several key legal provisions and their interpretations, including Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India and various judicial precedents on termination of probationers.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a cook employed by the Central Reserved Police Force, had his services terminated while on probation due to a theft incident. He was acquitted at the criminal trial, but his representations against the termination were rejected, leading to the filing of a writ petition seeking to set aside the termination orders.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of the petitioner's services, based on a Court of Inquiry's verdict of guilt, was penal in nature and not a simple termination. As a result, the termination was quashed, and the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated without back wages, with entitlement to notional pay increments.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the termination of a probationer's services, the distinction between a discharge simplicitor and a punitive termination, and the impact of termination on the probationer's future prospects.
Ratio Decidendi: The judgment established that a termination of a probationer's services is punitive if it is founded on an inquiry's verdict of guilt, and in such cases, the probationer is entitled to a full-fledged inquiry to prove innocence. It emphasized the distinction between a termination motivated by complaints and one founded on misconduct, negligence, or inefficiency, and the implications of each type of termination.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order terminating the petitioner's service was quashed. The petitioner was ordered to be reinstated without back wages, with entitlement to notional pay increments. The department was free to take further action as per law.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The petitioner was given employment as a cook by the Central Reserved Police Force and while on probation his services were terminated by an order dated February 14, 2007, which reads as under:-
“NOTICE FOR TERMINATION OF SERVICE
In pursuance of rule Proviso to sub rule (1) of rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, Gurdeep Singh Addl. DIGP GC, CRPF, Neemuch hereby terminate forthwith the services of No. 055220481 Cook/Hosp Suresh Kumar of GC, CRPF, NMH and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.”
2. Prior thereto a show cause notice bearing no date but issued in the month of December, 2006 was issued to the petitioner by the competent authority which reads as under:-
“OFFICE OF THE ADDL. DY. INSP. GENERAL, GROUP CENTRE, CENTRAL RESERVE POLICE FORCE, NEEMUCH (M.P.)
No. P-VIII-1/2006-EC-2 Dated December, 2006
To,
Force No. 055220481 Cook (Hospital)
Suresh Kumar Composite Hospital, CRPF, Neemuch, Madhya Pradesh.
Through - The DIGP (Medical), Composite Hospital, CRPF, Neemuch.
Subject:- Representation against suspension – Show Cause Notice
Our office is in receipt of your application dated 11/12/06. After carefully examining the contents of your application, you are hereby informed that the CRPF Rules referred to in para 3(a) of your application, are not applicable in case of your suspension. You are further hereby informed that your suspension has already been revoked by the competent authority and an Office Order of even number dated 11/12/06 has already been issued to that effect.
2. In addition to the above, your attention is hereby drawn towards your above referred application and the application dated 5/12/06 addressed to the DIGP, CRPF and it is stated that both of your above referred applications have been presented to the higher authorities without following the proper/prescribed channel, which reflects ignorance of the principles laid down by the Force. Further, you have not provided due information of your arrest in relation to the criminal proceedings pending pursuant to the theft of computer from the Hospital’s store room, to your Appointing/Disciplinary Authority or to your immediate senior, which is violative of the Memorandum No. 30/59/54- EC (a) dated 25/2/1955 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. In both the aforesaid applications respectfully, you have represented against your suspension and have complained regarding forceful confession obtained from you by the DIGP, Composite Hospital, which cannot be termed as providing due information by you to your Appointing/Disciplinary Authority or to your immediate senior.
3. Therefore, you are required to show cause as to why:-
(a) both the applications were addressed to the higher authorities without following the proper channel.
(b) the reasons for not furnishing the due information relating to your arrest in the criminal proceedings to your appointing authority or immediate senior, in capacity of a government servant.
(c) strict disciplinary proceedings be not initiated against you for the reasons as aforesaid.
4. A written reply to this Office must be ensured within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter.
For ADIGP,
GC, CRPF, Neemuch
No. P-VIII-1/2006-EC-2 Dated December, 2006”
3. From the show cause notice it is apparent that pertaining to a theft of a computer from the hospital store room, an FIR was registered. Concededly the petitioner has since been acquitted at the criminal trial.
4. The petitioner submitted a response to the show cause notice issued to him in December 2006 and pleaded innocence. The department issued the termination order dated February 14, 2007.
5. The petitioner submitted a representation against the
