Termination of a temporary employee must follow due process, including an inquiry if the action is stigmatic and punitive.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. With their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.

2. In the present O.A., the applicant has challenged the order dated 01.04.2024 vide which the respondents have terminated the services of the applicant by invoking the provisions of Sub Rule 1 of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, forthwith.

3. In the present O.A. the applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):-

(a) Directing the respondents to place the relevant records pertaining to the present O.A. before the Hon'ble Tribunal for the proper adjudication in the matter.

(b) Quash and setting aside the impugned termination order dt. 01.04.24 (Annexure A/1) after declaring the same is as illegal, biased, perverse, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice, violative of articles 14, 16 & 21 of the constitution of India and against the mandatory provision of law accordingly the applicant may be reinstated with all consequential benefits further allowing to continue in services in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the subject.

(c) Allowing the OA with consequential benefits and costs.

(d) Any other fit and proper relief may also be granted.”

4. The claim of the applicant has been contested by the respondents by filing the counter reply.

5. The matter is taken up for consideration and disposal with the consent of the learned counsels for the parties.

6. It is undisputed that the applicant was appointed as Temporary (Leave Reserved) Postal Assistant in the office of the Senior Superintendent of Post Office, Ernakulam Postal Division, Kochi, based on Combined Graduate Level Examination 2022 conducted by the SSC.

7. He was allotted Ernakulam Head Post Office and was assigned the charge on 08.11.2023. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that though the order dated 01.04.2024 on face of it appears to be an order simpliciter, however, in fact, the same is stigmatic inasmuch as the same is founded on misconduct of the applicant. He submits that inasmuch as the respondents have admitted in the counter reply that the involvement of the applicant in the FIR No. 680/2024 registered with Station House Officer, Ernakulam Central Police Station, Kochi City is a direct consequence of the gross negligence and misconduct of the applicant, a central government employee. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order of termination is admittedly founded on misconduct of the applicant and the termination of the applicant from service by invoking the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, is not sustainable in law. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the order/judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Nina Lath Gupta Versus Union of India and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 10385/2021 dated 01.05.2023.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Hilal Haider, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the claim of the applicant. He submits that during the course of the employment of the applicant the respondents have received an email from the Station House Officer Ernakulam Central Police Station Kochi City with information about the arrest of the applicant along with three others in criminal case number 680/2024 for the assault and attempt to murder of one Shri Vinod. Subsequently, the victim died and Section 302 and 109 of the IPC was also added in the said FIR. He submits that as the act of the applicant as alleged in the said FIR was found as gross negligence and misconduct, the appl