Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2543
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Om Prakash VII, Judicial Member, Mohan Pyare, Administrative Member
Vinod Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
T.A. No. 12 of 2011
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shri Shyamal Narain
For the Respondents: Shri K P Singh
Probation in contractual service not automatically confirmed on expiry; specific order needed. Employee bound by accepted offer terms permitting termination on unsatisfactory performance, estopped from later challenge. Valid simpliciter termination upheld.
Headnote:(A) Service Law - Probation and termination - Contractual appointment for five years with one-year probation extendable at discretion - Services terminable without reason on notice or pay in lieu - Termination after probation review committee found performance unsatisfactory, without extending probation - No automatic confirmation of probation upon expiry; specific order required - Employee bound by accepted offer terms, estopped from challenging them post-termination citing contrary rules - Termination simpliciter, not stigmatic, valid without show cause notice - No entitlement to regularization if termination lawful. (Paras 2, 5, 6, 9-16)
(B) Estoppel - Employee accepting appointment offer with explicit probation and termination clauses cannot later repudiate them as contrary to service rules after services terminated. (Para 13)
(C) Competence of authority - Termination by director held competent; no evidence adduced to contrary. (Para 14)
Facts of the case:
Applicant appointed as Administrative-cum-Finance Officer on term-contract basis for five years, joined after one-year probation commenced. Probation report considered by committee; services discharged after 16 months citing unsatisfactory performance and non-completion of probation, per offer terms. Challenged termination as illegal, by incompetent authority, discriminatory, seeking reinstatement, regularization.
Findings of Court:
Impugned termination order lawful, in accordance with appointment offer and rules; probation not automatically confirmed, termination valid simpliciter based on performance review.
Issues: Validity of termination pre-two-year period per rules; applicability of probation to contract employee; competence of terminating authority; entitlement to regularization vis-à-vis similarly placed employee; stigmatic nature requiring notice.
Ratio Decidendi: Offer of appointment governs; failure to complete probation permits discharge without notice or reason if non-stigmatic; employee estopped from inconsistent pleas; no regularization post-valid termination.
Result: Application dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. applicant challenges termination order seeking reinstatement (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. applicant's probation completion and regularization claims (Para 5 , 7) |
| 3. respondents defend termination on probation failure (Para 6) |
| 4. precedents uphold non-stigmatic probationer termination (Para 8 , 9) |
| 5. contract terms mandate probation and allow discharge (Para 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 6. offer acceptance estops challenging probation; termination valid (Para 13 , 14 , 15) |
| 7. application dismissed; termination order upheld (Para 16 , 17) |
ORDER
(Delivered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (Judicial)
Shri Shyamal Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri K P Singh, learned counsel for the respondents, were present at the time of hearing.
2. The instant transfer application contains the following relief:
“(i) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the impugned order bearing No. 015/2008 dated 12.11.2008 passed by opposite party No. 2 (contained in Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition);
(ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the opposite parties to allow the petitioner to work on the post of Administrative-cum-Finance Officer without any break in service and also to make payment of salary to the petitioner every month regularly;
(iii) issue any other appropriate writ, order or direction in favour of the petitioners as the Hon’ble Court may deem fit in the circumstances of the case.
(iv) Allow the petition with costs.
(v) issue a suitable order or direction commanding the respondents to consider the applicant for regularization and regularize him in service, retrospectively, with all consequential benefits , with effect from the date his next juniors in service was so regularized under the amended service rules providing for regularization of contractual officers and staff.”
3. The compendium of the facts narrated in the instant original application is that the applicant is aggrieved by the order bearing No. 015 of 2008 dated 12.11.2008 passed by the respondent no 2 through which the services of the petitioner have been terminated. The applicant was appointed on the post of Administrative-cum-Finance Officer in DOEACC Centre Gorakhpur in the pay scale of Rs. 10,000-325-15,200 on term contract basis for a period of 5 years pursuance to the offer of appointment dated 21.05.2007. Accepting the offer of appointment, the applicant joined duties w.e.f. 15.06.2007. The impugned order shows that the services of the applicant have been discharged on the recommendation of Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) and in line with the terms and conditions stipulated in the offer of appointment. The applicant has alleged that the impugned order is absolutely illegal and one passed in violation of the extant DOEACC rules and statutory provisions. The applicant contends that the impugned order has been passed by an incompetent authority without taking into consideration that the applicant has successfully completed the probation period and furthermore the said authority has passed the impugned order due to personal animosity and grudge against the applicant as the applicant has highlighted and complaint about the unfair conduct of the said authority. The OA also alleges that the applicant has been subjected to discriminatory treatment by the department as one similarly placed employee was granted the benefit of regularization while the applicant was terminated. The OA further alleges that the requisite and compulsory provisions enshrined in the relevant services rules have not been followed so much so that the extant policy of the central government has also been violated by the department. By way of the instant transfer application, the applicant seeks the quashing of the impugned order bearing no 015/2008 dated 12.11.2008 passed by the respondent no 2 thereby directing the respondents’ authorities to allow the applicant to work on the post of Administrative-cum-Finance Officer without a
