A probationer cannot claim deemed confirmation unless explicitly provided by rules; non-stigmatic termination does not require formal inquiry, and citing a wrong legal provision does not invalidate an order when the authority possesses the actual power to terminate under law.

ORDER

Per: RANJANA SHAHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER

The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant praying for the following reliefs: -

(i) By an appropriate order or direction, the impugned order dated 17.05.2018 and letter dated 04.08.2018 be quashed and set aside and the respondent be directed to re-instate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits.

(ii) Any other order, direction or relief may be passed in favour of the applicant which may be deemed fit, just and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iii) That the costs of this application may be awarded.”

2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he was initially appointed on the post of Bootmaker w.e.f. 01.04.2015 vide appointment letter dated 23.03.2015 in Temporary Capacity against General Post on probation for a period of 02 years as per the terms and conditions attached to the appointment letter. The applicant claims that as per the said terms and conditions, his services were governed by the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Amended Rules, 2014. The applicant further claims that he completed the probation period of 02 years and his probation period was never extended, therefore, on completion of probation period of 02 years, he was deemed to be regularized / confirmed on the post of Bootmaker from the date of his initial appointment i.e. 01.04.2015. He states that he had satisfactorily discharged his duty but due to sudden work at home, he left the Headquarter on 15.11.2017 and reached his village but due to sickness suffered on 17.11.2017, he could not resume his duty and when the doctor declared him fit vide fitness certificate dated 23.02.2018 that he finally joined the duty on 24.02.2018. He states that while going to attend the duty, he met with an accident and on 25.02.2018 underwent surgery following which he was advised rest by the doctor. He says that he was bed-ridden and his family is illiterate, as such, no intimation could be given to the competent authority. As such, the respondents issued a notice dated 16.04.2018 (Annexure A/10) for absence from duty and he was asked to submit his explanation. The applicant states that instead of initiating disciplinary inquiry as per CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, the respondents terminated his services vide order dated 17.05.2018 (Annexure. A/1) w.e.f. 01.04.2018. Hence, the applicant has challenged the impugned termination order dated 17.05.2018 mainly on three grounds, which are as follows:-

(i) The first ground taken by the applicant is that he had completed two years of probation period on 31st March, 2017, which was never extended, as such, on completion of the probation period, he was deemed to be regularized/confirmed in the service.

(ii) The second ground taken by the applicant is that the respondents were required to conduct the inquiry under CCS (CCA), Rules, 1965 but the respondents did not follow the required procedure.

(iii) The third ground taken by the applicant is that the impugned termination order dated 17.05.2018 is liable to be set aside because in the said order, the respondents have wrongly invoked sub-rule 6 (Govt. of India’s decision) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service), Rules, 1965.

3. The respondents have filed their reply controverting the claim of the applicant. The respondents have stated that the applicant was appointed on 01st April, 2015 as Bootmaker in Bengal Engineer Group and Centre, Roorkee in temporary capacity on probation for a period