Termination of probationer under temporary service rules, though innocuous on face, is punitive if founded on misconduct allegations requiring inquiry and natural justice, notwithstanding withdrawal of prior stigmatic notice.

ORDER

Hon’ble Mr.B.Anand, Member (A):

By way of filing of this Original Application (O.A.) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant seeks the following relief(s):

“(a) Quash and set aside the impugned termination order dated 09.08.2024, being illegal, arbitrary, stigmatic and violative of the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 as well as the principles of natural justice;

(b) Direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with continuity of service and all consequential benefits;

(c) Direct the respondents to pay arrears of salary and all admissible allowances to the applicant from the date of illegal termination till the date of reinstatement, along with all consequential benefits;

(d) Award costs of the present Original Application in favour of the applicant;

(e) Pass such other and further order(s) as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice.”

2. Pursuant to notice, the respondents have filed reply and have disputed and contested the claim of the applicant. The applicant has filed rejoinder and reiterated his claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

3. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant, Rahul Kumar, entered the service of the respondents on 26.11.2009 as a ‘Casual Labour’ on ‘Temporary Muster Roll (TMR)’ basis in the Horticulture Department. In the course of his engagement, he was transferred to the Accounts Branch, where he was entrusted with clerical and computer-related functions, including digital data entry, preparation of records and typing of official documents. His engagement, like that of other TMR workers, was governed by a policy of short-term employment with intermittent breaks, though he continued to render uninterrupted service in substance.

4. Pursuant to policy changes adopted by the respondents, TMR workers who had completed 500 days of service as on 31.01.2014 were granted the status of Regular Muster Roll (RMR). In terms of Order dated 25.07.2014, the applicant, having fulfilled the requisite eligibility, was conferred RMR status. While such conferment did not amount to regularisation or permanent appointment, it ensured continuity of employment without artificial breaks. The applicant continued to serve the respondents for over a decade thereafter, during which period he acquired experience, seniority and a satisfactory service record, giving rise to a legitimate expectation of stable employment.

5. On 03.05.2023, the respondents issued an appointment letter offering the applicant the post of ‘Palika Sahayak (Udhyan)’. The appointment was subject to a probation period of two years and governed by the terms of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The applicant accepted the offer and joined duties on 04.05.2023. However, during his service as ‘Palika Sahayak’, the applicant was issued an explanation memo dated 21.12.2023, which was received by him on 02.01.2024. The memo referred to a complaint dated 26.12.2022 received by the Vigilance Department, alleging manipulation of attendance records of RMR workers in the Accounts Branch of the Horticulture Department in exchange for illegal gratification. It was alleged that the applicant, while working in the Horticulture Accounts Unit and being attached with auditors, had facilitated excess wage payments to certain of