IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD, PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JJ.
Director, CSIR-CIMFR [Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research] – Appellant
Versus
Mayuresh Dash, S/o. Sri Rabindra Kumar Dash – Respondent
W.P.(S) No.612 of 2023
Decided on : 18-01-2024
[Writ Petition] - [Termination of Service] - [Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965; Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965] - [The court discussed the applicability of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, emphasizing that these rules apply to temporary employees, not probationers. The court highlighted that the termination of the respondent's service was stigmatic due to allegations of lack of responsibility, necessitating adherence to the principles of natural justice and the procedures outlined in the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965. The court concluded that the termination was improper and quashed the order, restoring the respondent's service status prior to termination.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Technical Assistant on probation for one year, which was extended due to unsatisfactory performance. Following a show cause notice regarding termination, the petitioner’s services were terminated, leading to a challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which restored the petitioner’s service, deeming the termination stigmatic.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination was based on allegations that were stigmatic in nature, thus requiring adherence to the principles of natural justice. The court held that the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 were not applicable as the petitioner was a probationer in a permanent post, and the proper procedure under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 should have been followed.
Issues: ["Whether the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 apply to the respondent's case.", 'Whether the termination was based on proper grounds and followed due process.', "Whether the respondent's service should be protected pending departmental proceedings."]
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that probationers in permanent posts are entitled to protections under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and that any termination based on stigmatic allegations requires a proper inquiry and adherence to natural justice principles.
Final Decision: The court quashed the order of the CAT, allowing the writ petition and permitting the petitioner to initiate departmental proceedings against the respondent, while restoring the respondent's service status prior to termination.
JUDGMENT :
Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.
1. This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the order dated 15.12.2022 passed by the Circuit Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench at Ranchi (hereinafter referred to as CAT, Ranchi) in Original Application being O.A. No.051/00269/2021, whereby, the order dated 26.02.2021 as contained in letter no.8/3489/19-Estt-I/987, by which, the service of the petitioner, respondent no.1 herein, has been terminated as also the direction sought for confirmation of the applicant, who is the respondent no.1 in the list. The Tribunal has quashed the aforesaid impugned order and the service of the applicant, respondent no.1 herein was restored to the status as existing on 25.03.2021 prior to termination.
2. The brief facts as per the pleading made in the original application, as has been interpreted in the instant petition, read as under:-
3. It is the case of the applicant/respondent no.1 that the applicant was appointed to the post of Technical Assistant/GR III in CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) vide order dated 25.07.2019. The appointment offer stipulated that applicant will be on probation for one year from the date of his joining which may be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority.
4. The appointment offer also mentioned that applicant's services may be terminated during the period of probation on one month notice in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reason.
5. The applicant had joined the post on 09.08.2019. On completion of one year, applicant's services was not confirmed and his probation was extended till 07.11.2020 vide OM dated 28.08.2020. The OM extending the probation mentioned lack of sense of responsibility, unsatisfactory disposal of allotted work, inability to perform jobs in given time and lack of patience as the grounds for extension of probation. Applicant's probation was further extended by 3 months till 07.02.2021 vide OM dated 02.12.2020 on the grounds of deficiencies noted in timely completion of allotted work, inability to perform the job in satisfactory manner and lack of inquisitiveness.
6. It is the further case that after expiry of the second extension of probation, applicant was served a show cause notice vide OM dated 08.02.2021 as to why his services should not be terminated in terms the appointment offer and DOPT OM dated 11.03.2019. Applicant submitted his representation but the respondents after considering the representation decided to terminate his services w.e.f. 25th March, 2021. Respondent, the petitioner herein, vide OM dated 26.02.2021, gave one month notice to applicant terminating his services from 25th March 2021 (AN).
7. It is evident from the pleading of the respondent no.1, who was applicant before the learned Tribunal was appointed Technical Assistant/GR III in CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) vide order dated 25.07.2019. The aforesaid offer of appointment contains a condition that the period of probation for a period of one year from the date of his joining which may be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority.
8. The further condition contained in the said offer of appointment that the applicant’s services may be terminated during the period of probation on one month notice in accordance with the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 without assigning any reason. Accordingly, the applicant has joined the post on 09.08.2019. On completion of one year, his service was not confirmed, rather, his probation was extended till 07.11.2020 vide OM dated 28.08.2020.
9. The applicant’s probation was further extended by three months till 07.02.2021 vide OM dated 02.12.2020 on the ground of deficiencies noted in timely completion of allotted work, inability to perform the job in satisfactory mann
Msr. Maneka Gandhi Vrs. Union of India and Anr., reported in (1978) 1 SCC 248
Ramlal Khurana v. State of Punjab [(1989) 4 SCC 99 : 1989 SCC (L&S) 644 : (1984) 11 ATC 841]
Probationers in permanent posts are entitled to protections under the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, and terminations based on stigmatic allegations must fol....
If misconduct is the foundation to pass the order, then an enquiry into misconduct should be conducted and an action according to law should follow. But if it is (sic) notice, it is not incumbent upo....
Termination of probationer under temporary service rules, though innocuous on face, is punitive if founded on misconduct allegations requiring inquiry and natural justice, notwithstanding withdrawal ....
Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, reads as services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by....
: Petitioner has been terminated on the ground of his being surplus in the Force which is not in consonance with principles of law.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.