The main legal point established is that the termination of a temporary employee under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is justified and does not violate principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY, J.

1. Heard Mr. Ashish Kumar Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Pratyush Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

3. This writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:

“For quashing the office order dated 03/09/2011 passed by the respondent No. 2 whereby and whereunder the respondents had terminated the services of the petitioner in most arbitrary manner without giving the petitioner any show cause or opportunity of hearing and also commanding upon the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service.”

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was appointed as sepoy in Central Reserve Police Force, Simdri, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as CRPF) vide appointment letter dated 30.05.2011. He further submits that the petitioner joined on 27.06.2011 and was doing his duty. By the impugned order dated 03rd of September, 2011 the service of the petitioner has been terminated without following the principles of natural justice. He has also submitted that as per the letter of appointment annexure-1, the petitioner is governed by CRPF Rules of 1955 and as per the impugned order his services has been terminated under Sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 which is not appliable upon the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents on the other hand while opposing the prayer of the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is governed by Central Civil Service (Temporary Service Rules) 1965 and for this he has relied upon a judgment passed by this court in the case of Paramjit Singh versus Union of India which in turn had referred to the judgment passed in W.P. (S) No. 6600 of 2014 in the case of Purshotam Gope @ Purusoutam Gope versus the Union of India and Others decided on 18.04.2022 wherein it has been held that Rule 16 of CRPF Rules, 1955 clearly provides that all members of force shall be enrolled for a period of three years and they shall be liable to be discharged at any time on one month’s notice by the appointing authority. At the end of this period those not given substantive status shall be considered for quasi permanency under Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 and those not declared quasi permanent shall be continued as temporary government employees.

6. The learned counsel submits that the impugned order of termination has been passed in accordance with law and the same is not stigmatic and therefore there is no applicability of any rule of natural justice while passing the impugned order of termination. The learned counsel has also submitted that continuation in service cannot be claimed as a matter of right and the order of termination is not going to entail any disqualification from employment in any other service. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by this court in the case of Alok Kumar Singh vs. Union of India, 2018 SCC Online Jhar. 1447 and he has referred to paragraph 6 of the said judgment. Learned counsel has also relied upon a judgment passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 197 of 2021 decided on 01.11.2022. He has referred to paragraph 9 thereof. In the said case also order of termination was passed under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which was passed without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Ultimately the order of termination was upheld by the Hon’ble Division Bench. Learned counsel submits that termination is strictly in terms of Rules and therefore no interference is called for. Learned counsel has referred to paragraph 6 to 12 of the writ petition to submit that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner had left without any intimation and permission and his conduct is not above board and the authority considered him to be unsuitable for continuation and the impugned order is not at all stigmatic. Lea