The main legal point established in the judgment is that temporary government servants can be terminated without the necessity of holding an enquiry as per Rule 5(1)(a) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Additionally, the judgment emphasizes the importance of providing accurate information in the attestation form, as false information or suppression of factual information may lead to termination of services.

V.K. TAHILRAMANI, J.

1. The petitioner has directed this petition against the order of the Tribunal dated 31.03.2017. By the said order, the O.A. preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. In the said O.A., the petitioner had prayed for quashing the termination notice dated 18.10.2016 issued under Section 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. In the said notice, it was informed that he shall be terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on him. It is an admitted fact that thereafter, on 18.11.2016, the petitioner has been terminated.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by an order dated 12.02.2010, the petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on regular basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that as the petitioner was regularly appointed, disciplinary enquiry ought to have been held before he was terminated and termination without enquiry has to be set aside.

3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was appointed as Mazdoor on regular basis is not correct. A perusal of the appointment order dated 12.02.2010, shows that the said appointment was purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis and it was subject to the outcome of the Court case in W.A.No.2326 of 2005 in W.P.No.18615 of 2005; W.P.No.596 of 2006; W.P.No.10134 of 2009; W.P.No.14784 of 2009 and W.P.No.14894 of 2009 pending before the High Court, Madras.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that even if he is a temporary employee, he could not have been removed until he was proved guilty in an enquiry. In support of this contention, learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Hari Ram Maurya v. Union of India and others, reported in (2006) 9 SCC 167, wherein it is stated that even if the employee was a temporary employee, enquiry had to be conducted and only thereafter, he could be removed. It is noticed that in Hari Ram Maurya case, it was a case of bribery. It was in these circumstances, that the Supreme Court has held that it is necessary to hold an enquiry and thereafter act in accordance with law. In the present case, there is no allegation against the petitioner of bribery, hence, the decision is not applicable to the case of the petitioner.

5. From the appointment order, it is seen that the petitioner was not regularly appointed as Mazdoor, but he was appointed purely on temporary and ad-hoc basis. In such case, the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 would be applicable to the petitioner. Rule 5(1)(a) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 reads as under:

“5. Termination of temporary service. -

(1)(a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant.”

Thus, the Rules do not contemplate any necessity of holding an enquiry and the temporary Government servant can be terminated by just giving a notice in writing to the employee.

6. A perusal of the appointment order dated 12.02.2010, makes it clear that the petitioner was initially appointed as Casual Labourer in the office of the Additional Director of Agriculture, Karaikal. Thereafter, he was appointed as Mazdoor with effect from 04.2.2010, subject to the outcome of the Court Case in W.A.No.2326 of 2005 in W.P.No.18615 of 2005; W.P.No.596 of 2006; W.P.No.10134 of 2009; W.P.No.14784 of 2009 and W.P.No.14894 of 2009 pending before the Madras High Court and also subject to the terms and conditions stipulated in the Memo dated 03.2.2010 of the Recruitment Committee. One of the conditions stipulated in the Memo reads as under:

“He/She will be liable for terminating from service if it is found that he/she was guilty of misconduct involving moral turpitude, which would disqualify him/her to Government