The termination of a temporary employee under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules due to failure to complete mandatory training and persistent misconduct is valid and does not violate principles of natural justice.

ORDER

[Pronounced by Hon'ble Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member (J)]

The applicant has filed the present OA, under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act , 1985, seeking the following relief:

(i) Call for all the relevant and connected records relating to the proceedings in Ref.No.7/C-4/2014(538)-3337, dated 14.7.2021 of the 2^nd Respondent and No.16/EST(PF)/2020(3)-3075, dated 26.11.2020 of the 4^th Respondent and quash or set aside the same holding it as being arbitrary, illegal, unjust, violative of principles of natural justice and consequently violative of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India;

(ii) Consequently, declare that the Applicant is entitled to be continued in service and that he would be entitled to all the benefits including seniority and monetary that would flow from out of setting aside the impugned orders and declaring that the Applicant is entitled to be treated as to have been in employment continuously and direct the Respondents to compute and release the same And pass such other and further order or orders as are deemed fit and proper by this Hon‟ble Tribunal under the circumstances of the case.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant responded to the notification issued in 2013 and after successfully clearing the selection process, he was offered appointment as Assistant Central Intelligence Officer Grade II Executive on 23.07.2014. The offer of appointment specified that he would be on probation for a period of two years, which may be extended at the discretion of the Appointing Authority. He accepted the same and he was declared to have successfully completed the training and was issued initial posting orders vide order dated 19.03.2015. No order extending the probation was ever issued to the applicant.

3. The applicant submitted that his first posting was to Aizwal, wherein he worked for two years and he was transferred to Hyderabad after the period of two years. The contention of the applicant is that due to some personal and health issues, he could not attend to duty on certain dates and though he submitted a medical certificate from competent authority, he was suspended. When he was referred to a Medical Board constituted by the respondents, it was confirmed that the diagnosis of the doctor as certified in the medical certificate as well as the certificate produced by the applicant was genuine. Subsequently, his suspension was revoked and the entire period of suspension was treated as period spent on duty. In spite of the same, he was imposed a penalty of censure on 18.09.2018 and was administered warning on 09.11.2020. The applicant further contends that, contrary to the extant instructions issued by the Nodal Ministry on Probation/confirmation, by an order dated 26.11.2020, the Respondents invoked the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and terminated the services of the applicant. Aggrieved by the same, the applicant preferred appeal on 22.12.2020 and he was issued a communication on 24.12.2020 to vacate the government quarter on or before 26.12.2020, as otherwise, he would be liable to pay damage charges. Left with no option, the applicant filed OA No.898 of 2020 and the same was disposed of, vide order dt. 12.04.2021, with a direction that the appeal preferred by the applicant be decided within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the order. Thereafter, vide order dated 14.07.2021, the appellate authority rejected the appeal of the applicant. Hence this Original Application.

-

4. It is contended by the applicant that the period of probation was to be for a period of two years and no order has been passed extending the period of probation till the impugned termination order was passed. As per rules, the probation period cannot be extended beyond twice the original period of probation and therefore, as the applicant was appointed in 2014, even if the probation is extended assumingly, it cannot go beyond 2018. Therefo