Termination of services upheld as applicant did not meet essential eligibility criteria for the post of Security Officer, despite claims of natural justice violations.

ORDER

As Per:- Rajveer Singh Verma, Member[Judicial]

1. The present OA has been filed by the applicant to challenge office memorandum no. 8/3474/2018-Estt.I/246 dt. 04.07.2019 issued by CSIR- CIMFR Dhanbad by which the services of the applicant was terminated with immediate effect and the applicant prays for following reliefs:-

“For setting aside/quashing the memorandum issued by Respondent No. 3 vide no. 8/3474/2018-Est-I/246 dated 04.07.2019 whereby the appointment of the applicant has been terminated on the ground that he does not meet the essential eligibility criteria for the post of security officer.”

BRIEF CASE

2. The applicant is an ex-serviceman, retired on 31.07.2014, from the Indian Navy as a Petty Officer with a Pay Band of Rs. 11,050/-. The applicant qualifies under Rule 6 of the Ex-Serviceman (Re-employment in the Central Civil Services and Posts), which allows appointment to the post if the essential educational qualifications and experience are met.

3. The CSIR-Central Institute of Mining and Fuel Research (CIMFR) advertised a post of Security Officer (Post Code: SECTO) through advertisement No. CIMFR-02/2017, inviting applications for an unreserved post in Pay Matrix Level 7, Grade Pay Rs. 4600/-. The required qualification for the post included Ex-Serviceman Short Service Commissioned Officers, JCO (Subedar or higher), or equivalent in para- military forces with at least 5-10 years of security experience. The applicant met these qualifications and applied accordingly, submitting necessary documents, including certificates from the Indian Navy verifying successful completion of the Marine Commando Course and Naval Trade Certificate equivalent to NCO Code-5169.1. The applicant was shortlisted for an interview held on 17.12.2017, and his name appeared in both the selected and waitlisted candidates' lists, as per the notification dated 18.12.2017.

4. The Selection Committee of CSIR-CIMFR recommended the applicant for the post, and an appointment letter was issued on 21.12.2017, which the applicant accepted by reporting for duty on 09.01.2018.

5. The appointment included a one-year probation period. The applicant worked for approximately 18 months, from 09.01.2018 to 04.07.2019, without receiving any notice about the completion of his probation. Despite serving beyond the probation period, the applicant was terminated on 04.07.2019 through an office memorandum stating that the applicant did not meet the essential eligibility criteria for the Security Officer position.

6. The applicant raised a representation on 20.07.2019 to the Administrative Officer of CSIR-CIMFR, objecting to the termination, stating the memorandum was illegal and arbitrary. The applicant filed a writ petition (WP(S) No. 4488 of 2019) before the Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand seeking quashing of the termination order. The petition was dismissed on 21.09.2020, but the applicant was allowed to approach the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Patna, Circuit Bench, Ranchi.

7. That the termination order was issued without a show-cause notice or an opportunity for a hearing, violating principles of natural justice. He contends that he submitted all necessary documents when applying, and the responsibility for verifying eligibility lies with the respondent authority before or during the probation period. Hence, this OA.

8. Respondents have filed the written statement and contested the OA on following grounds:

I. As per Clause-3 of the Offer of Appointment (No. 1(58)/Sec. Officer/2017/RU/5345, dated 21.12.2017), the applicant was on probation for one year from the date of taking charge. The probation period could be extended or curtailed at the discretion of the competent authority. Upon successful completion of probation, the applicant was to be considered for confirmation in the same post, in line with DoPT OM no. 28020/3/2018-Estt (C), dated 11.03.2019. However, the probation could not be considered complete as the applicant had not completed the period of