A non-stigmatic order terminating the services of a probationer is not punitive unless the Court finds the order to be punitive by lifting the veil.

1. The writ petitioner was appointed pursuant to the letter offering appointment dated 5th July, 1995 as a Driver on temporary basis. It was indicated in the letter offering appointment that the service could be terminated without assigning any reason. It was also indicated in the letter offering appointment that for period of two years the writ petitioner would be on probation. Concededly, the department treated the writ petitioner to be appointed against a temporary post and on probation for a period of two years. Exercising power under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 his services were terminated on 4th September, 1997, but he was reinstated in service. He was kept on probation. On 6th February, 1998 a charge sheet was issued. The writ petitioner claims that he lost his mental balance and he could not defend himself before the enquiry officer.

2. On 21st April, 1998 his services were terminated once again under Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The order in question reads as under:-

"In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, H.K. Thakur, Deputy Narcotics Commissioner (Admn.) hereby give notice to Shri Yogesh Sharma, Driver that his service shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him."

3. The charge-sheet which was issued to the writ petitioner alleged that while working as a Driver in the office of the Narcotics Commissioner on 15.1.1998 at 5.30 PM he used un-parliamentary language and tried to molest two lady labourers who were engaged in the construction of Government residential quarters. When husband of one of the lady: Ram Swaroop, intervened the petitioner hit him with a bottle. When one Vijay intervened the petitioner threw water on him and hit him with the bucket. The second charge was that on 4.2.1998 at 6.00 PM the petitioner was found in a drunken condition in the guard room.

4. Challenging the order terminating his service the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal which has dismissed the Original Application filed by the writ petitioner holding that the order is non-stigmatic. The Tribunal has been influenced by the fact that while on probation the conduct of the writ petitioner was not satisfactory.

5. The issue before the Tribunal was whether after the charge-sheet was issued to the writ petitioner, could his service be terminated as a probationer by passing a non-stigmatic order. The argument of the petitioner was that the veil had to be removed.

6. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner urges the same point while arguing the writ petition.

7. It is settled law that a non-stigmatic order terminating services of a probationer is not punitive unless the Court finds the order to be punitive by lifting the veil. Where order terminating service is preceded by some departmental enquiry and when questioned in a Court on the plea that the veil be lifted to see as to what was the foundation of the order, it was held that motive and foundation are two different concepts. We may quote only from one decision Gujarat Steel Tube Vs. Gujarat Steel Tubes Majdoor Sangh, (1980) 2 SCC 593. As to foundation, it was observed:-

".......a termination effected because the master is satisfied of the misconduct and of the desirability of terminating the service of the delinquent servant, it is a dismissal, even if he had the right in law to terminate with an innocent order under the standing order or otherwise. Whether, in such a case, the grounds are recorded in different proceedings from the formal order, does not detract from its nature. Nor the fact that, after being satisfied of the guilt, the master abandons the inquiry and proceeds to terminate. Given an alleged misconduct and a live nexus between it and the termination of service, the conclusion is dismissal,