Termination under CCS (Temporary Service) Rules Rule 5(1) is punitive if founded on specific misconduct without formal enquiry, even if order appears simpliciter; requires reinstatement with liberty for disciplinary action.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-

In the present OA, the applicant has challenged the order dated 02.07.2015 (Annexure A-2) vide which he has been terminated from services of the respondents and a memorandum dated 10.12.2015 (Annexure A-3) vide which the impugned termination order has been upheld. The applicant has prayed for the following reliefs in Para 8 of the above OA: -

“(i) To quash and set aside the order dated 12.06.2015 and order dated 02.07.2015 whereby the services of applicant to the post of LDC has been terminated, order dated 10.12.2015 whereby the appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondent that applicant be reinstate back in service to the post of LDC forthwith with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion and pay & allowance.

(ii) Any other relief which this Hon‟ble court deems fit and proper may also be awarded to the applicant.”

3. Brief facts of the case, leading to the filing of the instant OA and evident from the assertion made in the OA, are that the applicant joined service on 11.06.2014 under the respondents i.e. Intelligence Bureau on the basis of Combined Higher Secondary Examination, 2012 conducted by the Staff Selection Commission in a temporary capacity as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) at Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Bhubneshwar. The respondents issued a Memorandum dated 14.05.2015 whereby the applicant was directed to attend the 2-week Induction Course scheduled to be held at RTC Kolkata from May 25 to June 5, 2015. He attended the said training course at RTC, Kolkata and nominated as Hostel Monitor by DCIO/Training.

4. The applicant submits that the respondent issued a Memorandum dated 12.06.2015 whereby the applicant was directed to explain his misconduct and to submit his reply thereof within a period of 7 days. The applicant submitted a reply to the same on 12.06.2015 highlighting that no misconduct was done by the applicant and the only reason for disrupting the applicant training course was that the upper button of applicant’s shirt was found open. However, the applicant states that he was shocked to receive order dated 02.07.2015 issued by Assistant Director/E, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, GOI, Bhubneshwar whereby his services have been terminated under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. The applicant also mentioned that he has been falsely implicated due to wrong identification in respect of few complaints made during the period of induction course attended by him at RTC, Kolkata from May 25 to June 05, 2015.

5. The applicant further submits that he made an appeal against the order of termination dated 02.07.2015 to the Competent Authority on 14.07.2015. The applicant approached this Tribunal by way of OA No. 3537/2015 against the inaction of the respondents for not deciding his appeal. The respondents, however, rejected his appeal by a non-speaking and mechanical order dated 10.12.2015, thus making the order bad in law.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that similar orders were passed by the respondents in respect of two other employees namely Manjeet Singh and Anand Singh arising out of the same incident, who approached this Tribunal by way of OA No. 4727/2015 and OA No. 4134/2015, respectively, and the said OAs have been allowed by this Tribunal vide order dated 28.07.2023 and 05.12.2023, respectively. Learned counsel for the applicant has further argued that the claim of the applicant is also covered by an order dated 02.06.2023 of this Tribunal in OA No. 1319/2021 titled Satyender vs. Govt. of NCT of D