A termination of a government employee, even a probationer, deemed to be based on misconduct rather than administrative grounds is stigmatic and cannot be enforced without following the principles of natural justice and conducting a formal departmental inquiry.

ORDER

Hon’ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J):

Brief facts of the case as narrated by the applicant in this OA are that the applicant was working on the post of Grade-II (DASS)/Assistant Section Officer in the Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi. The Service Department (II), GNCTD, vide notification dated 25.04.2019, nominated 50 dossiers of candidates provisionally selected by DSSSB, which included the name of the applicant. Pursuant thereto, the applicant was issued an appointment letter dated 08.07.2019 and he duly joined his duties and submitted his joining report on 10.07.2019 to the Assistant Commissioner (North West), Food Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. Thereafter, the applicant commenced his probation period and continued to discharge his duties diligently.

2. Prior to his appointment on the aforesaid post, the applicant had also appeared in an examination conducted by DSSSB for the post of Teacher (Primary) under post codes 16/17 and 01/18, which was held on 30.09.2018. Subsequently, the applicant received an offer of appointment from the South Delhi Municipal Corporation Education Department for the said post.

3. while the applicant was serving on probation in the Department of Food Supplies And Consumer Affairs, DSSSB, upon scrutiny of documents, alleged that the applicant had indulged in unfair means in the aforesaid examination. Consequently, vide order dated 17.03.2020, DSSSB debarred the applicant for lifetime from appearing in any examination conducted or to be conducted by it with effect from 30.09.2018, and further declared that his candidature in any prior examination would be deemed cancelled.

4. It is pertinent that during his service tenure, the applicant’s salary was duly released, his date of joining was verified, and his appointment was confirmed after due administrative scrutiny. The applicant also received a positive Annual Performance Appraisal Report (APAR) for the year 2019–2020, reflecting his sincerity and dedication towards his duties.

5. Thereafter, on 23.07.2020, DSSSB communicated the debarment order to the Deputy Secretary (Services), who in turn, vide letter dated 20.08.2020, advised the Department Of Food Supplies And Consumer Affairs to terminate the services of the applicant under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Acting upon such advice, the department issued a termination order dated 30.09.2020, thereby terminating the services of the applicant.

6. Being aggrieved, the applicant initially approached the Tribunal by filing OA No. 575 of 2021, which was withdrawn with liberty to file a representation. The applicant submitted a representation dated 23.06.2021 before DSSSB; however, no response was received. Subsequently, the Tribunal directed DSSSB to decide the representation, and the same was rejected vide reply dated 07.01.2022. Having no other efficacious remedy, the applicant has approached this Tribunal.

7. Counsel for the applicant argues that the punishment awarded to the applicant is wholly unjust, arbitrary, excessive and disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. Debarring the applicant for lifetime from appearing in any examination conducted by DSSSB is in itself an extremely harsh penalty, and the additional action of terminating his emplo