2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 5320

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
R N Singh, Member (J), Sanjeeva Kumar, Member (A)
Bibhav Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Government of NCT of Delhi Through its Chief Secretary – Respondent
O.A. No.1531/2024

Stigmatic termination orders founded on misconduct allegations, even for temporary/co-terminus employees, require formal enquiry and competent authority approval for show cause; pending disclosed FIR without conviction not valid ground post-verification.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 - Rule 5 - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Co-terminus appointment - Termination of services - Applicant appointed as Private Secretary on co-terminus basis twice, disclosing pending criminal case (FIR under Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC) in attestation form - Character verification conducted, appointment made subject to outcome of case - Show cause notice issued by Vigilance Department without explicit approval of competent authority (Lt. Governor) - Termination order held stigmatic as it characterized charges as grave, declared applicant not clear from vigilance angle, and initial engagement void ab initio without formal enquiry - Show cause notice and termination order set aside for violation of natural justice principles, lack of competent authority approval, and stigmatic nature requiring enquiry - Applicant restored to position till specified date with 50% consequential benefits. (Paras 25-56)

(B) Service Law - Termination simpliciter vs. punitive/stigmatic - Distinction between motive and foundation - If termination order founded on misconduct allegations (e.g., grave charges, vigilance clearance issues), full enquiry mandatory even for temporary/co-terminus employees - Order cannot cast stigma on character/reputation affecting future employability without opportunity to defend - Tribunal can examine attendant circumstances, preceding notings, counter-affidavit to determine nature. (Paras 41-52)

(C) DoPT OMs (1982, 2011, 2013) - Applicability to pending cases - No bar on appointment merely for pending FIR (not conviction involving moral turpitude) if disclosed and verified - Prior verification suffices for re-appointment; cannot terminate on same known facts post-service. (Paras 35-40)

Facts of the case:
Applicant appointed twice on co-terminus basis as Private Secretary, disclosing pending FIR at investigation stage; character report received noting no adverse remarks in Delhi period but pending case; re-appointed with condition subject to FIR outcome; later show cause notice issued citing DoPT OMs violation, leading to termination order declaring engagement void ab initio.

Findings of Court:
No suppression of FIR; show cause lacked competent authority approval; pending FIR (disclosed) not valid termination ground; order stigmatic, founded on misconduct without enquiry; restoration ordered till specified date with limited benefits.

Issues: (i) Suppression of FIR? (ii) Competency to issue show cause? (iii) Pending FIR valid termination ground? (iv) Termination stigmatic requiring enquiry?

Ratio Decidendi: Termination under Rule 5 CCS (Temporary Service) Rules invalid if show cause lacks competent authority approval and order stigmatic (imputing grave charges, vigilance ineligibility) without formal enquiry; principles of natural justice mandate opportunity where foundation is misconduct, not mere motive; disclosed pending case without conviction no bar post-verification.

Result: OA allowed; impugned notice/orders set aside; applicant restored notionally till 01.09.2024 with 50% consequential benefits.