Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 14018
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Surya Parkash Mishra – Appellant
Versus
Gnctd – Respondent
O.A./1243/2024
Termination of appointment must adhere to principles of natural justice, requiring a fair hearing before action is taken against an individual for alleged misconduct.
Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary) Service Rules, 1965 - Termination of service - The applicant, after being appointed as Principal, faced termination due to allegations of submitting fake documents. The Tribunal found the termination order to be stigmatic and not complying with the principles of natural justice. The notice lacked an opportunity for the applicant to defend himself, thus quashing the order and reinstating the applicant with benefits. (Paras 1, 18)
(B) Public service - Appointment conditions - Terms of appointment stipulated that falsifying qualifications would lead to termination without notice. However, the established law mandates a fair hearing before such a punitive action is taken. The principle outlined asserts that a mere allegation does not justify immediate punitive action without due process. (Paras 5, 16)
Facts of the case:
The applicant was selected for Principal after a competitive process, but faced termination citing that his experience certificate was forged. His claims remained unverified and allegations were made without affording him a chance to respond.
Findings of Court:
The termination was ruled as punitive and stigmatic, thus quashed, with directions for immediate reinstatement, reflecting a failure to adhere to principles of natural justice.
Issues: Whether the termination was justified given the lack of opportunity for the applicant to defend against claims of misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that hiring protocols require a hearing prior to any such allegation-tinged termination. The law maintains that procedures must be followed to ensure justice.
Result: Impugned order quashed; applicant reinstated.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background regarding application and appointment. (Para 2) |
| 2. both parties submit arguments on legal and procedural aspects. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. examination of legality under the central civil services rules. (Para 6 , 9 , 12) |
| 4. consequences of providing false documents during employment process. (Para 10 , 11) |
| 5. order quashing termination; reinstatement with benefits. (Para 17 , 18) |
O R D E R
By Hon’ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A):-
The applicant has filed present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act., 1985, seeking the following relief under para 8 of the OA:-
“8. It is therefore respectfully prayed that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, this Hon‟ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to:
(a) Quash and set aside the impugned notice/order dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure A/1) and
(b) accord all consequential benefits including continuity of services.
( c) award costs of the proceedings.
(d) Any other which this Tribunal deems fit and proper in favour of the applicant.”
2. The brief facts of the case are that in response to an advertisement bearing No. 07/2021 dated 24.4.2021 inviting applications for recruitment by selection for various posts, the applicant applied and submitted his application for the post of Principal along with requisite fee. The respondents‟ department conducted the written test on 17.07.2022 and the result was declared in the month of September, 2022. Subsequently, the applicant was interviewed on 15.2.2023 and in the final result dated 22.03.2023, the applicant was declared selected. After document verification on 12.4.2023, accepting UPSCs recommendation, the respondents issued offer of appointment to the applicant on 19.04.2023 (Annexure A-4). The applicant vide order dated 26.6.2023 (Annexure A-5) joined the respondents on 28.06.2023 and he was allocated to GBSSS, Shalimar Bagh Village on 30.06.2023. On 04.03.2024 (AnnexureA-1) the respondents issued notice terminating the services of the applicant with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date of service of notice invoking the powers under Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary) Service Rules. The said notice was served upon the applicant on 05.03.2024, perusal of which reveals that the said order is stigmatic as the applicant is alleged to have used various unfair means, fake and fabricated certificate/documents. The experience certificate No. DAV PS/Tanda/2020-21/54 dated 12.05.2021 was also forwarded to the Principal, DAV Public School, TTPP, Asopur, TANDA, Ambedkar Nagar, U.P. for verification and the said Principal of aforesaid handed over the report dated 19.09.2023 of physical verification in respect of the applicant in a sealed envelope addressed to Addl. D.E. (Admn.). The same was opened by the Director (Education), wherein the Principal D.A.V Public School, TPP, TANDA, Admbedkar Nagar (U.P) has mentioned that “the experience certificate attached with your above referred letter is not issued by the office of D.A.V. Public School, TPP, TANDA,A.N.(U.P). It is further stated that the respondents have conducted an enquiry into a complaint against the applicant and terminated the applicant. The applicant states that the action of the respondents is unilateral and without affording him any opportunity of hearing to defend his case. The applicant also stated that neither the copy of alleged complaint nor the copy of enquiry report or alleged report/letter/statement of Principal, DAV School, TTPP, Tanda, Ambedkar Nagar has been furnished to him prior to issuing the impugned (Annexure A1) order. Aggrieved by the aforementioned impugned order (Annexure A-1), the applicant has filed the present Original Application seeking the aforementioned relief(s).
3. On admission of the OA, notices were issued to the respondents and they have filed their counter reply on 01.05.2024, to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder on 03.05.2024. The respondents have als
