Termination of employment justified due to widespread allegations of corruption and procedural irregularities in the selection process despite claims of satisfactory service.

ORDER

Justice K.Haripal, Judicial Member

As common question arises for consideration, both these Original Applications were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

2. The applicants were appointed as Lower Division Clerks in Central Plantation Crops Research Institute, CPCRI for short, Kidu, Karnataka and Kasaragod respectively, on the basis of Annexures-A2 and A3 orders in the respective OAs. They were selected and appointed as LDCs pursuant to Annexure-A1 notification issued by the 2^nd respondent. In Annexure-A1, applications were invited for various posts in the CPCRI including four posts of LDCs. Among four posts, two were unreserved, one each was reserved for Scheduled Tribes and OBC. Out of the four posts, one post was reserved for Ex- service man. The applicant in O.A.202/2017 is an Ex-service man.

3. Applicants are aggrieved by Annexure-A4 office order dated 08.03.2017 in O.A.201/2017 which reads thus:

“In pursuance of the Proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, Director ICAR-CPCRI, Kasaragod hereby terminate forthwith the service of Shri Arun N.K. Raj, LDC and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.”

Similar order was issued to the applicant in O.A.202/2017 also. That means, invoking the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, the services of both the applicants were terminated abruptly. Challenging the legality and correctness of the above order, they have approached the Tribunal for quashing Annexure-A4, for a declaration that they are entitled to be continued in service with all consequential benefits as if the impugned order has not been issued and to direct the respondents to permit them to continue as such.

4. According to the applicants, Annexure-A4 is arbitrary and violative of the Constitutional guarantees under Articles 14, 16 and 311. The applicants were appointed against regular vacancies, they have completed the period of probation of two years as stated in Annexures-A2 and A3. Even after completion of more than four years since they have not been declared having successfully completed the period of probation, they are deemed to have attained confirmation and hence CCS(Temporary Services) Rules cannot be invoked. Annexure-A4 was issued on the directions of the 1^st respondent and it is void ab initio.

5. Referring to Annexures-A2 and A3 it is submitted that their services can be terminated only for the reasons stated in the documents, on failure to satisfactorily complete the period of probation. The respondents do not have such a case. They have been terminated for extraneous reasons, it casts stigma on them and is punitive in nature.

6. Annexure-A4 was issued as an offshoot of O.A.48/2015 filed before this Tribunal challenging the entire selection process. During the pendency of the O.A., in view of Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, such an order is bad. According to them, it is not a termination simplicitor. They should have given reasons for terminating the services which have not been done.

7. On behalf of the respondents 1 and 2 the 2^nd respondent filed replies disputing the contentions of the applicants. According to them, after completion of the selection process of LDCs, on the basis of information gathered under the Right to Information Act, numerous complaints were raised. The matter was enquired into by the Vigilance Inspection team of the ICAR. While so, in 2015, one Mithun E.P., who has since been impleaded himself as additio