Termination without proper notice or hearing violates principles of natural justice, necessitating reinstatement pending tribunal's final decision.

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Shakdher, J.: (ORAL)

[PHYSICAL COURT HEARING]

CM APPL. 30653/2021

1. The substantive prayers made in the application are as follows: -

"a) allow the present application and grant early hearing to the aforesaid writ petition through Virtual/physical hearing;

b) direct the respondent to treat the petitioner at par with any other Chemical Assistants of batch 2008 and also send them for special "instrumental training" along with other Chemical Assistants;"

2. Mr. Bimlesh K. Singh, who appears for the applicant/petitioner, has, broadly, taken us through the backdrop, in which the writ petition came to be filed in this Court.

3. Accordingly, the prayer made for early hearing, is allowed.

3.1. Insofar as the other prayer is concerned, which is, that, the petitioner should be treated at par with his batchmates and sent for special `instrumental training', is an aspect qua which, observations are made hereinafter.

4. The application is, accordingly, disposed of.

W.P.(C) 3248/2019 & CM No. 14907/2021 [Application filed on behalf of the petitioner seeking stay on the operation of the impugned order, dated 22.02.2019]

5. With the consent of counsel for the parties, i.e., Mr. Singh and Mr. Amit Sinha, who appears for the respondents, the matter is taken up for final hearing and disposal, at this stage, itself.

6. The broad facts, concerning the instant case, have been captured by the predecessor bench, in the order, dated 01.04.2019. For the sake of convenience, the relevant part of the said order is extracted hereinafter: -

"....The petitioner has assailed the order dated 22.02.2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (the Tribunal) in Review Application preferred by the Union of India in respect of the order dated 23.07.2018. By the order dated 23.07.2018, the Original Application preferred by the petitioner had been allowed and he had been directed to be reinstated in service from which he was terminated after about 10 years of service on the ground that when he was appointed, he was not qualified in terms of the Recruitment Rules. This wisdom has dawned on the respondent after 10 years of the petitioner rendering service. The respondent had then preferred writ petitions before this court in the present case, as well as other connected cases, being WP(C) Nos. 10235/2018, 10239/2018, 10240/2018 & 10241/2018. The said writ petitions were initially taken up on 27.09.2018. On that day, the submission advanced on behalf of the respondents herein was that, in case, the petitioners herein are reinstated, the said respondents would have the right to take fresh action after putting the petitioner herein to notice, and after conducting fresh enquiry.

We may observe that the termination of the services of the petitioner herein had taken place without any enquiry against him, by resort to the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Subsequently, on 28.09.2018, the respondents sought to withdraw the writ petitions with liberty to prefer a review application. Consequently, the respondents herein preferred their review application before the Tribunal, which has been allowed by the impugned order. The ground on which the review application has been allowed is that the initial order allowing the Original Application had been passed without granting an opportunity to the respondent to file their reply.

The submission of the petitioner is that the petitioner has been left high and dry on account of the sudden termination of services without any prior notice or hearing on the ground that the petitioner did not meet the eligibility criteria when the petitioner was appointed 10 years ago. The petitioner submits that with passage of time, the petitioner has become over age and would not be able to take up any employment, and he has a family to support. He further submits that the respondents could not have kept the sword hanging on the petitioner's head and arbitrarily invoked the po