2024:CGHC:33060 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPS No. 36 of 2024 Order Reserved On : 06/08/2024 Order Delivered On : 29/08/2024  Manish Maan S/o Shri Kailash Chand Maan Aged About 26 Years Presently Working As Nursing Officer, At Aiims, Raipur, Cg ... Petitioner versus

1. All India Institute of Medical Sciences Through- Its President, AIIMS, Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

2. The Director And Chief Executive Officer All India Institute Of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. The Administrative Officer (Hospital), All India Institute Of Medical Sciences, Raipur,, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. R.K. Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondents : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey &

Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal (C A V Order)

Per Rajani Dubey, J.

1. The petitioner has preferred this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India being aggrieved by the order dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P/1), whereby the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench (for short ‘the CAT’) rejected the application of the petitioner affirming the notice of termination (Annexure P/6).

Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE Date: 2024.08.29

2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the petitioner, are that vide order dated 29.02.2020 (Annexure P/2), the petitioner was appointed on the post of Nursing Officer (Group-B) in the respondents Institute (AIIMS) and pursuant to the order dated 29.02.2020, he joined as Nursing Officer in AIIMS on 20/03/2020 vide Annexure A/3. The appointment of the petitioner was subject to verification of relevant certificates and antecedent. After completion of probation period of two years, the petitioner was served a memo dated 04/08/2022 (Annexure P/4) for suppression of pending criminal case and was directed to submit his explanation within a period of 07 days under the Rule- 5[1-a] of Central Civil Services [Temporary Service] Rules, 1965. The petitioner duly replied the memo dated 04.08.2022 claryign his stand. Thereafter, the respondent No. 01 issued a termination notice dated 15.11.2022 (Annexure P/6) under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. Being aggrieved by the said notice of termination, the petitioner filed an application before the learned CAT under Section 19 of The Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 bearing Ο.Α. No. 203/1109/2022 whereby, the learned CAT passed the impugned order dated 10.11.2023 affirming the notice of termination on the ground that the petitioner procured employment by concealing the material information.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner was a regular employee and until the compliance of provision of Rule-14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965, the services of the petitioner cannot be dispensed with, as such, the notice dated 15.11.2022 served to the petitioner under Rule 5 (1-a) will not be applicable. Learned counsel further submits that during the pendency of the case before the learned CAT, the petitioner was discharged from criminal charges, therefore, the termination of the petitioner is bad in law and the petitioner was liable for continuation of his service. Learned counsel also submits that the respondent authorities without considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, issued a notice of termination, which is complete violation of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The preliminary enquiry was initiated behind the back of the petition and on the basis of preliminary enquiry, the petitioner was served with memo dated 04.08.2022 but the copy of the same was not supplied to him and thus acted against the principle of natural justice. In support of his submission, learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in 2017