Kerala High Court
Safeer Karim vs Union Of India on 21 January, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2025:KER:4689
"C.R."
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR
TUESDAY, THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY 2025 / 1ST MAGHA, 1946
O.P.(CAT) NO. 99 OF 2023
AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 07.06.2023 IN O.A.NO.775 OF 2019
OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH
PETITIONER/APPLICANT:
SAFEER KARIM,
AGED 35 YEARS
SON OF KARIM AZIZ, KOLLOMPARAMBIL HOUSE,
KUNNUKARA P.O., ALUVA, ERNAKULAM, KERALA,
PIN - 683524.
BY ADVS.
K.RAMAKUMAR (SR.)
ASWINI SANKAR R.S.
S.M.PRASANTH
T.H.ARAVIND
2025:KER:4689
2
O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA ,
REPRESENTED BY THE UNDER SECRETARY POLICE - I
DIVISION, (IPS - IV SECTION), MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI,
PIN - 110001.
BY ADV SRI.SUVIN R.MENON, CGC
THIS OP (CAT) HAVING COME UP FOR FINAL HEARING ON
18.10.2024, THE COURT ON 21.01.2025 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:4689
3
O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
ANIL K. NARENDRAN & P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JJ. "C.R."
-----------------------------------------------------------
O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 21st day of January, 2025
JUDGMENT
P.G.Ajithkumar, J.
The petitioner filed O.A.No.775 of 2019 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench seeking to set aside Annexure A1 order by which the respondent discharged the petitioner from the Indian Police Service (IPS). He was a probationer. The Tribunal as per Ext.P4 order dated 07.06.2023 dismissed the original application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner filed this original petition invoking the provisions under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
2. The petitioner was selected as a Member of the Indian Police Service in the examination held in 2014. After completing the training, he was allotted to the Tamil Nadu cadre and appointed as a probationer in Tirunelveli District. He attended the Civil Service Examination in 2017. His examination centre was Presidency Girls Higher Secondary 2025:KER:4689 4 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 School, Egmore, Chennai. On 30.10.2017, he reached the examination centre at about 8.40 a.m. He allegedly avoided frisking at the entrance and entered the classroom. On getting information about an attempt to malpractice during the examination, the candidates in the room where the petitioner was one among the candidates, were rechecked. On frisking by the DCP, a cell phone, a typed note and certain electronic gadgets, such as bluetooth, wireless earplug and an electric wired circuit were found in the possession of the petitioner. A statement was taken from him by the examiner-in-charge.
3. A crime was registered against the petitioner from Egmore Police Station and he was arrested. His wife, who was trying to supply answers using the aforementioned electronic devices was also arrested and implicated in that crime. People who aided them were also added as accused. Offences under Sections 420 and 120(b) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and Section 66 of the Information Technology Act, 2000 were alleged. The petitioner was placed under suspension. He was issued a show cause notice, Annexure A5 as to why he should 2025:KER:4689 5 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 not be discharged from the service. An enquiry was conducted as contemplated under Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules, 1954. After considering the reply submitted by the petitioner, the report in Annexure R3, the respondent issued Annexure A1 order discharging the petitioner.
4. The petitioner challenged Annexure A1 before the Tribunal in O.A.No.775 of 2019 on various grounds. The respondent filed a reply producing therewith Annexures R1 to R3. The petitioner has filed a rejoinder, along with Annexures A15 to A25. The Tribunal, after considering the pleadings and documents, and hearing both sides found as per Ext.P4 that the challenge against Annexure A1 could not be entertained. The petitioner assails Ext. P4 order on various grounds, both legal and factual in this original petition.
5. Heard Sri.K.Ramakumar, the learned Senior Counsel, appeared on instructions for the petitioner and Sri.A.R.L. Sundaresan (Sr), the learned Additional Solicitor General of India for the respondent.
2025:KER:4689 6 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
6. The petitioner passed the preliminary test of the Civil Service Examination, 2017, and was appearing in the main examination scheduled to be held from 28.10.2017 till 03.11.2017. The incident in question occurred on 30.10.2017. The fact that the petitioner reached the examination hall on 30.10.2017 and there occurred a frisking after the candidates entered the examination hall on that day is not in dispute. The allegation against the petitioner is that he avoided frisking at the entrance claiming to be a probationary IPS Officer and when a frisking was conducted later based on a tip-off, a cell phone, a typed note, and electronic devices were found concealed by the petitioner. In respect of the said malpractice a crime was registered against him at the Police Station, Egmore in Chennai. The petitioner was arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Since he was in custody for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension.
7. The Deputy Secretary to the Government of India issued on 22.11.2017 Annexure A5 memorandum to the petitioner asking to explain within 10 days why he should not 2025:KER:4689 7 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 be discharged from service in terms of Rules 12(b), 12(c) and 12(d) of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules. Violation of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Civil Services Examination Rules, 2017 was cited as the reason for the proposed discharge. Registration of a crime against the petitioner for attempting to commit malpractice in the examination was also a reason cited for the proposed discharge. The respondent formed an initial opinion that the petitioner was unsuitable owing to the said reasons for being a member of the service.
8. The petitioner has submitted a written explanation to the said show cause notice, a copy of which is Annexure A7. He has denied the allegation as to his attempt to commit malpractice in the examination and seizure of a cell phone, typed note, and electronic gadgets from his possession. In the said circumstances, an enquiry was conducted. The Joint Director, SVP National Police Academy, Hyderabad was appointed as the enquiry officer. After enquiry, he submitted Annexure R3 report. The findings in Annexure R3 report were that the charge levelled against the petitioner in Annexure A5 2025:KER:4689 8 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 show cause notice was found to be correct. The essential findings in Annexure R3 are averred in paragraph No.12 of the reply filed by the respondent, which are extracted below-
• "Safeer Karim was caught on 30.10.2017 at Presidency Girls Higher Secondary School, Egmore during the General Studies Paper-1 of Civil Services Examinations 2017 (Mains). • He was found in possession of a cell phone, a typed note, and certain electronic devices, which were attached to his T- Shirt. Mr. Safeer Karim had reached the examination centre by about 8:30 AM. He had revealed to the personnel at the bottom of the staircase leading the examination hall that he was an IPS Probationer and they had not frisked him as a result and he was seated in hall No.7 on the first floor when the DCP reached there.
• There were 24 examinees in that hall seated in 4 rows of 6 each. The DCP informed them that they would be taken out in groups for re-frisking. Accordingly, at about quarter to 9 am, a batch of 6 examinees was taken to the staff room on the same floor and frisked. They were sent back to the examination hall and second batch of 6 examinees taken to the staff room for frisking. Mr. Safeer Karim was the 5th examinee in this second batch. When he was frisked, they found an i-phone in his pant pocket and a miniature mike with wires stitched into the t-shirt worn below his shirt connected with a Bluetooth device attached to the t-shirt near the waist. Safeer Karim tried to remove an earpiece from his ear and they recovered another earpiece from his other ear. The DCP's PSO videographed this entire process on 2025:KER:4689 9 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 his cell phone.
• As there was a time gap of a few minutes after they announced that they would be doing a re-frisking and the frisking of the 2nd Group, Mr. Safeer Karim had sufficient time to dispose off the miniature camera that would have been operated by the remote shutter that was also found in his pocket. Mr. Safeer Karim had actually evaded the general frisking and was already seated in the examination hall with the devices found in his possession subsequently. • He had also operated the miniature camera used to take photograph as per his modus operandi at around 8.46 am (as per the image on his Google drive found in the investigation). This image where is roll number on the desk is visible. It is evident that after the search team entered the examination hall and before he was checked, Mr. Karim had the opportunity to dispose off the miniature camera, perhaps by swallowing it or throwing it away. However, he could not dispose off the remote clicker, miniature mike, blue tooth device etc. connected with wires hidden in the in-seams of his inner wear. All the devices and the manner that they were stuck/stitched inside his inner wear reveal a clear intent to cheat and by no stretch of imagination be claimed as oversight or innocent.
• A case was registered in Egmore Police Station in Crime No. 1646/2017 under Sections 420, 120(b) IPC and Section 66 of Information Technology Act 2000. He was arrested on 30.10.2017.
• Shri Safeer Karim accepted that he carried the electronic gadgets inside the examination hall to secure high marks in UPSC by getting the answers from his wife Joicy Joy, who 2025:KER:4689 10 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 was stationed at Hyderabad for the purpose of assisting him through electronic gadgets. He also produced two other OPPO mobile phones, one SANDISK micro memory SD card 16 GB, one police ID card in his name and other documents which were used by him for the purpose of cheating in the UPSC Exam.
• His wife confessed that she helped her husband Safeer Karim on 28.10.2017 for the General Essay Paper of Civil Services Examination 2017 using the same technique i.e. Safeer Karim sitting in the examination hall sent the image of the question paper through Google drive and after receiving the same, she communicated the answers through her mobile phone bearing number 80757-03107 to the Safeer Karim's Mobile nos.96002- 68127, 80751-06297. She downloaded the image of the question papers through the laptop provided by Dr. Rambabu Paladugu, who runs 2 IAS coaching centers at Ashok Nagar and Madhapur in the name of LA Excellence IAS in Hyderabad. • Ms. Joicy Joy was produced in the CMM Court, Nampally, Hyderabad on 31.10.2017. She was taken to Chennai on 1.11.2017 and remanded to Judicial custody on 1.11.2017. • On 1.11.2017, Dr. Rambabu Paladugu appeared before the I.O. at Egmore PS. He confessed about the assistance rendered to Joicy Joy by providing his laptop for downloading the question paper through Google drive. He was remanded to judicial custody on 1.11.2017.
• Safeer Karim and his wife Juicy Joy had also carried electronic gadgets for writing the Civil Services [Preliminary) Examination, 2017 on 18.6.2017 at Madurai and Trivandrum respectively. The images from the Google drive of Safeer Karim also show the question paper related to the exam for 2025:KER:4689 11 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 the post of Lower Division Clerk conducted by KPSC and the question paper related to the exam for the post of Upper Division Clerk conducted by ISRO. The analysis of the CDR for the mobile numbers which had been used by the accused clearly indicates that Safeer Karim and Joicy Joy received the answers for the UPSC preliminary exam, 2017 through voice conference call from Samjad and Mohamed Shabeeb Khan.
• Samjad who runs an IAS Coaching Centre in the name of NEO IAS Academy in Cochin, and Trivandrum. He also purchased Karim's IAS Academy located near Kerala Civil Services Academy which was started by Safeer Karim. Samjad admitted that he had helped Safeer Karim by providing the answers for the question papers downloaded by Mohammed Shabeeb Khan to clear the Civil Services Preliminary Examination held on 18.6.2017. Samjad was arrested on 3.11.2017.
• Mohammed Shabeeb Khan was arrested on 4.11.2017 in Trivandrum. In his confession he admitted that on 18.6.2017 he had downloaded the question paper images sent from the Madurai examination hall by Safeer Karim and handed over the same to Samjad for getting the answers that were communicated to Safeer Karim through the SIM Card provided by Joicy Joy.
• In the meantime, Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu transferred this case to TN CBCID on 13.11.2017. This case was re-registered in CBCID, OCU-II, Chennai as FIR No. 4/2017 under Section 420, 120(b), IPC and 66 of Information Technology Act, 2000 read with 34 IPC and taken up for further investigation."
2025:KER:4689 12 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
9. The President of India appoints an IPS Officer. But, a Under Secretary to Government issued Annexure A1 order of discharge. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that discharge/termination from service can be ordered only by the appointing authority, and on that ground itself Annexure A1 is illegal. From the materials available on record, it is evident that much before commencement of the examination, the cell phone, typed notes and electronic gadgets were removed and the same would not be a violation of any of the provisions of Rule 14 of the Civil Services Examination Rules.
10. The learned senior counsel further pointed out that a confession statement purported to be of the petitioner was placed reliance on, but no such confession was given by the petitioner voluntarily. When the petitioner was discharged after conducting an enquiry and based on the report of enquiry, his discharge became punitive in nature. The respondent, however, did not serve a copy of the report to him or called for his explanation. The principles of natural 2025:KER:4689 13 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 justice were violated in the conduct of the enquiry by denying him a copy of the report. That resulted in brazen violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is thus submitted that discharge of the petitioner from the service is illegal and that the Tribunal without considering the said aspects of the matter dismissed the original application.
11. Insofar as the lack of authority in issuing Annexure A1 the contention of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. Annexure A1 order was signed by an under Secretary. But the order in it is of the President of India. By the order of the President only it was issued and hence it cannot be said that a different agency ordered the discharge and the order is illegal.
12. The learned Additional Solicitor General of India pointed out that an attempt to use unfair means during the examination is also a prohibited act under Rule 14 of the Civil Services Examination Rules. So, the act of the petitioner is a sufficient reason to hold him ineligible and unsuitable for the post in terms of 12 (b) and (d) of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules.
2025:KER:4689 14 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
13. Rule 14 of the Civil Services Examination Rules reads as follows:
"14. A candidate who is or has been declared by the Commission to be guilty of:-
(i) Obtaining support for his candidature by the following means, namely:-
(a) offering illegal gratification to; or
(b) applying pressure on; or
(c) blackmailing, or threatening to blackmail any person connected with the conduct of the examination; or
(ii) impersonation; or
(iii) procuring impersonation by any person: or
(iv) submitting fabricated documents or documents which have been tampered with: or
(v) making statements which are incorrect or false or suppressing material information: or
(vi) resorting to the following means in connection with his candidature for the examination, namely -
(a) Obtaining copy of question paper through improper means:
(b) Finding out the particulars of the persons connected with secret work relating to the examination:
(c) Influencing the examiners: or
(vii) using unfair means during the examination: or
(viii) writing obscene matter or drawing obscene sketches in the scripts: or
(ix) misbehaving in the examination hall including tearing of the scripts, provoking fellow examinees to boycott examination, creating a disorderly scene and the like: or
(x) harassing or doing bodily harm to the staff employed by the 2025:KER:4689 15 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 Commission for the conduct of their examination: or
(xi) being in possession of or using any mobile phone, pager or any electronic equipment or device or any other equipment capable of being used as a communication device during the examination: or
(xii) violating any of the instructions issued to candidates along with their admission certificates permitting them to take the examination: or
(xiii) attempting to commit or, as the case may be abetting the commission of all or any of the acts specified in the foregoing clauses:
May in addition to rendering himself liable to criminal prosecution, be liable:-
(a) to be disqualified by the Commission from the Examination for which he is a candidate; and/or
(b) to be debarred either permanently or for a specified period:-
(i) by the Commission, from any examination or selection held by them:
(ii) by the Central Government from any employment under them; and
(c) if he is already in service under Government to disciplinary action under the appropriate rules:
Provided that no penalty under this rule shall be imposed except after:-
(i) giving the candidate an opportunity of making such representation in writing as he may wish to make in that behalf; and
(ii) taking the representation, if any, submitted by the candidate within the period allowed to him into consideration."
2025:KER:4689 16 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
14. Rule 14(vii) of the Civil Services Examination Rules prohibits using unfair means during the examination. Rule 14(xii) says that an attempt to commit any of the acts specified in the foregoing clauses therein also is a violation. Therefore, reaching the examination hall with a cell phone, typewritten notes and electronic gadgets which would enable one to manipulate the examination amounts to an attempt to unfair means during the examination. That amounts to a contravention of Rule 14 of the Civil Services Examination Rules.
15. The enquiry was conducted by the Joint Director of SVP National Police Academy about the misconduct alleged against the petitioner. Annexure R3 is the report of enquiry. The submission of the learned Senior Counsel concerning the said enquiry and action followed thereon are that the enquiry was conducted in violation of the principles of natural justice and the action was taken without even serving a copy of the report of enquiry on the petitioner. It is submitted that when the petitioner was discharged from service, after holding such an 2025:KER:4689 17 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 enquiry, the action became punitive. In a case of punitive action, non-compliance with Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India vitiates the whole process and the discharge/ termination becomes illegal.
16. An order to terminate a probationer would be punitive in certain circumstances. Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules lays down the circumstances under which a probationer can be discharged from service. Rule 12 reads as follows:
"12. Discharge of probationer:- A probationer shall be liable to be discharged from service, or as the case may be, reverted to the permanent post on which he holds a lien or would hold a lien had it not been suspended under the rules applicable to him prior to his appointment to the Service, if:-
(a) he fails to pass the re-examination under rule 9, or
(b) if the Central Government, is satisfied that the probationer was ineligible for recruitment to the Service or is unsuitable for being a member of the Service, or
(c) in the opinion of the Central Government he has wilfully neglected his probationary studies or duties; or
(d) he is found lacking in qualities of mind and character needed for the Service; or
(e) he fails to comply with any of the provisions of these rules:
2025:KER:4689 18 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 Provided that except in a case falling under clause (a) above, the Central Government shall hold a summary enquiry before passing an order under these rules."
17. The petitioner was discharged as per Annexure A1 invoking sub-rules (b) and (d) of Rule 12. The said clauses speak about ineligibility, unsuitability, and lack of qualities for a probationer to be a member of the service. When the said clauses were invoked, the reason for the discharge is not particularly the petitioner's attempt to commit malpractice in the civil services Examination. Certainly, the same led to the initiation of the proceedings and ultimately resulted in his discharge from service. Relevance of the enquiry and Ext.R3 report was, in the aforementioned circumstances, to the limited extent of enabling the appointing authority to take a decision as to the eligibility or suitability of the petitioner to continue in the service. Both sides placed reliance on various decisions in this respect.
18. In Union of India v. Mohammed Ramzan Khan [(1991) 1 SCC 588] the Apex Court considered the effect of deletion of the second opportunity from the scheme of 2025:KER:4689 19 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 Art.311(2) of the Constitution of India. It was held that the deletion has nothing to do with providing a copy of the report to the delinquent in the matter of making his representation. Even though the second stage of the inquiry in Article 311(2) has been abolished by amendment, the delinquent is still entitled to represent against the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer holding the delinquent guilty of the charges. It was further held that the supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof.
19. A Constitution Bench of the Apex Court in Managing Director, ECIL, Hyderabad v. B.Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] held that whenever the Inquiry Officer is other than the disciplinary authority and the report of the Inquiry Officer holds the employee guilty of all or any of the charges with proposal for any punishment or not, the delinquent employee is entitled to a copy of the report to enable him to make a 2025:KER:4689 20 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 representation to the disciplinary authority against it and the non-furnishing of the report amounts to a violation of the rules of natural justice. The law laid down in Mohammed Ramzan Khan (AIR 1991 SC 471) was thus upheld.
20. The learned senior counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on Dharampal Satyapal Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise [(2015) 8 SCC 519] in order to contend that denial of opportunity during enquiry and non-furnishing of a copy of the report vitiated Annexure A1. The Apex Court held that the opportunity to provide hearing before making any decision was considered to be a basic requirement in the Court proceeding. Later on, this principle was applied to other quasi-judicial authorities and other tribunals and ultimately it is now clearly laid down that even in the administrative actions, where the decision of the authority may result in civil consequences, a hearing before taking a decision is necessary.
21. A Division Bench of this Court in Sudhakaran C.B. (Dr.) v. Cochin Educational Society [2009 (1) KHC 685] 2025:KER:4689 21 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 held with reference to the provisions under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India that an opportunity to show cause why the findings of the enquiry officer shall not be accepted is mandatory, so that before accepting the finding, the disciplinary authority can consider as to whether all or any of the finding should be accepted or not, in the light of the objection filed by the delinquent employee. If no opportunity is given by furnishing a report, virtually it is a denial of a fair opportunity to the delinquent of being heard in the matter, because the enquiry report is not known to the delinquent employee, which also is a material relied on by the management, based on which action was taken.
22. The Apex Court dilated the principles of natural justice and undeniable right of an employee to get a copy of the report of enquiry against whom action is proposed in State Bank of India v. Rajesh Agarwal [(2023) 6 SCC 1]. The observations are that the principles of natural justice are not mere legal formalities. They constitute substantive obligations that need to be followed by decision-making and 2025:KER:4689 22 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 adjudicating authorities. The principles of natural justice act as a guarantee against arbitrary action, both in terms of procedure and substance, by judicial, quasi-judicial, and administrative authorities. Two fundamental principles of natural justice are entrenched in Indian jurisprudence: (i) nemo judex in causa sua, which means that no person should be a judge in his own cause; and (ii) audi alteram partem, which means that a person affected by administrative, judicial or quasi-judicial action must be heard before a decision is taken. The court added that the application of the said principles depends on the facts and circumstances of the case, express language and basic scheme of the statute under which the administrative power is exercised, the nature and purpose for which the power is conferred, and the final effect of the exercise of that power.
23. The right of the employee, who is subjected to punishment following an enquiry, to get a copy of the report and to have an opportunity to offer his explanation to the disciplinary authority has thus been held to be an indefeasible 2025:KER:4689 23 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 right. Despite deletion of the provision regarding affording of a second opportunity under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, the said right is intact and any violation thereof vitiates the order imposing punishment. Even in the case of termination of service of a probationer, the said right is ordinarily to be honoured. But the question whether non-compliance of the said requirement always vitiates the proceedings was considered by the Apex Court in a line of decisions. The essential criteria to answer that question was held to be whether the discharge/termination is punitive or not.
24. In State of West Bengal v. Tapas Roy [(2006) 6 SCC 453] the Apex Court considered the question as to when a discharge of a probationer becomes punitive or stigmatic. It was held that in order to constitute a stigmatic order necessitating a formal inquiry, it would have to be seen whether prior to the passing of the order, there was an inquiry into the allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct so that the order of discharge was really a finding of guilt. If any of these three factors are absent, the order would not be 2025:KER:4689 24 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 punitive. It was observed that stigma in the wider sense of the word is implicit in every order of termination during probation. It is only when there is something more than imputing unsuitability for the post in question, that the order may be considered to be stigmatic. Having regard to the language in the order of discharge in that case it was held that it neither alleges any moral turpitude or misconduct on the part of the respondent nor was there an inquiry as such preceding the order of discharge.
25. The Apex Court in State of Punjab v. Jaswant Singh [(2023) 9 SCC 150] held that if the delinquency of the officer in temporary service is taken as the operating motive in terminating the service, the order is not considered as punitive while if the order of termination is founded upon it, the termination is considered to be a punitive action. This is so on account of the fact that it is necessary for every employer to assess the service of the temporary incumbent in order to find out whether he should be confirmed in his appointment or his services should be terminated.
2025:KER:4689 25 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
26. The Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta [(1999) 3 SCC 60] considered the question as to in what circumstances an order of termination of a probationer can be said to be punitive? It was held that whether an order of termination of a probationer can be said to be punitive or not depends on whether the allegations which are the cause of the termination are the motive or foundation. It was observed that if findings were arrived at in inquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, a simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegations and would be bad, but if the enquiry was not held, and no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct an enquiry, but, at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee's services, it would only be a case of motive and the order of termination of the employee would not be bad. The above proposition of law was reiterated in State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh [(2005) 5 SCC 569] and 2025:KER:4689 26 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 Union of India v. Mahaveer C.Singvi [(2010) 8 SCC 220].
27. Therefore, in a case where a probationer is discharged from service and in order for forming an opinion as to the suitability of the employee or lack of qualities of mind and character for a service, even if an enquiry is conducted, it may not become punitive. That question depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
28. The law laid down in Dharampal Satyapal [(2015) 8 SCC 519], where the admission made by the delinquent was also a circumstance lead to the decision, assumes importance. The petitioner herein also made admission as to his bringing the gadgets to the examination hall before the examiner in charge. The three Judge Bench held as follows;
"30. But that is not the end of the matter. While the law on the principle of audi alteram partem has progressed in the manner mentioned above, at the same time, the Courts have also repeatedly remarked that the principles of natural justice are very flexible principles. They cannot be applied in any straight-jacket formula. It all depends 2025:KER:4689 27 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 upon the kind of functions performed and to the extent to which a person is likely to be affected. For this reason, certain exceptions to the aforesaid principles have been invoked under certain circumstances. For example, the Courts have held that it would be sufficient to allow a person to make a representation and oral hearing may not be necessary in all cases, though in some matters, depending upon the nature of the case, not only full fledged oral hearing but even cross-examination of witnesses is treated as necessary concomitant of the principles of natural justice. Likewise, in service matters relating to major punishment by way of disciplinary action, the requirement is very strict and full - fledged opportunity is envisaged under the statutory rules as well. On the other hand, in those cases where there is an admission of charge, even when, no such formal inquiry is held, the punishment based on such admission is upheld. It is for this reason, in certain circumstances, even post decisional hearing is held to be permissible. Further, the Courts have held that under certain circumstances principles of natural justice may even be excluded by reason of diverse factors like time, place, the apprehended danger and so on."
29. Here is a case where the officer has attempted to use unfair means during his civil service examination. Following such an attempt, a crime was registered and the petitioner was arrested and sent to judicial custody.
2025:KER:4689 28 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 A statement recorded by the examiner in charge of the centre contains admission by the petitioner regarding bringing of the prohibited articles, including electronic gadgets. The gadgets were capable of electronically transmitting questions and to get answers during the course of the examination. It is true that he did not use the said facility during the examination since he was caught before the commencement of the examination. It was on 30.10.2017. Being a probationary IPS officer, the petitioner could enter the examination hall with such prohibited articles. The facts and circumstances came out from the aforesaid aspects established that there was an attempt on the part of the petitioner to use unfair means during the civil service examination. It is true that those facts were confirmed in Annexure R3 enquiry report.
30. Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules contemplates a summary enquiry before passing an order under the said Rules. The enquiry culminating in Annexure R3 report was such a summary enquiry and not the one provided as in the disciplinary Rules. In the light of the 2025:KER:4689 29 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 provisions in Rule 12 of Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules and the materials on record, it can only be said that Annexure R3 report was not the basis for the petitioner's discharge as per Annexure A1 order. On the other hand, the said report was used only to enable the appointing authority to form an opinion about suitability and qualities of the petitioner to continue in service as a probationer.
31. The learned senior counsel in the above context pressed into service the principle highlighted in State Bank of India v. Palak Modi [(2013) 3 SCC 607]. That was a case where 18 candidates used unfair means in the examination. Before taking action no enquiry involving the candidates was held. The malpractice was suspected in the computer analysis of the objective answer book. In such a scenario the Court held that the candidates were condemned unheard and the action taken was illegal. The facts of that case are totally different. Here, the petitioner was caught red- handed and he made an admission before the examiner in charge. A criminal case was also initiated against him.
2025:KER:4689 30 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 Therefore the said principle cannot be resorted to the petitioner's advantage.
32. The Apex Court in Dr.T.C.M.Pillai v. Indian Institute of Technology, Guidy, Madras [(1971) 2 SCC 251] held that a probationer or a temporary servant can be discharged if it is found that he is not suitable for the post which he is holding. This can be done without complying with the provisions of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India provided, the termination is not by way of punishment. In Union of India v. Shri Rati Pal Saroj [(1998) 2 SCC 574] the Apex Court took the view that before a probationer is confirmed, the authority concerned is under an obligation to consider whether the work of the probationer is satisfactory or whether he is suitable for the post. If it comes to the conclusion that the probationer is not suitable he is liable to be discharged, and he cannot claim the benefit of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.
33. Yet another question which deserves consideration is, what would be the effect of non-service 2025:KER:4689 31 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 of a copy of the report: whether, in all cases of non- service, the order of discharge or termination would be illegal. The Apex Court in B.Karunakar [(1993) 4 SCC 727] considered that question. It was held:
"30. xx xx The next question to be answered is what is the effect on the order of punishment when the report of the Inquiry Officer is not furnished to the employee and what relief should be granted to him in such cases. The answer to this question has to be relative to the punishment awarded. When the employee is dismissed or removed from service and the inquiry is set aside because the report is not furnished to him, in some cases the non- furnishing of the report may have prejudiced him gravely while in other cases it may have made no difference to the ultimate punishment awarded to him. Hence to direct reinstatement of the employee with back-wages in all cases is to reduce the rules of justice to a mechanical ritual. The theory of reasonable opportunity and the principles of natural justice have been evolved to uphold the rule of law and to assist the individual to vindicate his just rights. They are not incantations to be invoked nor rites to be performed on all and sundry occasions. Whether in fact, prejudice has been caused to the employee or not on account of the denial to him of the report, has to be considered on the facts and circumstances of each case. Where, therefore, even after the furnishing of the report, no different consequence would have followed, it would be a perversion of justice to permit the employee to 2025:KER:4689 32 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 resume duty and to get all the consequential benefits. It amounts to rewarding the dishonest and the guilty and thus to stretching the concept of justice to illogical and exasperating limits. It amounts to a "unnatural expansion of natural justice" which in itself is antithetical to justice."
34. The Apex Court in Haryana Financial Corporation v. Kailash Chandra Ahuja [(2008) 9 SCC 31] held that:
"44. From the aforesaid decisions, it is clear that though supply of report of Inquiry Officer is part and parcel of natural justice and must be furnished to the delinquent- employee, failure to do so would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order or the order being declared null and void. For that, the delinquent employee has to show `prejudice'. Unless he is able to show that non-supply of report of the Inquiry Officer has resulted in prejudice or miscarriage of justice, an order of punishment cannot be held to be vitiated. And whether prejudice had been caused to the delinquent- employee depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and no rule of universal application can be laid down."
35. The aforementioned principle evolved while considering cases where action was taken against members of service, and not in the case of probationers. When it was held in the case of members of service that the failure to serve a 2025:KER:4689 33 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 copy of the report would not automatically result in quashing or setting aside of the order imposing punishment, more rigour cannot be attached in the case of a probationer. As stated hereinbefore Annexure R3 is a report of a summary enquiry as contemplated in Rule 12 of the Indian Police Service (Probation) Rules.
36. We noticed above that the discharge of the petitioner from the service was based not on the findings in the said report alone. There were other materials such as admission by the petitioner before the examiner in charge, initiation of a criminal case against him, his detention in judicial custody in connection with that case, etc. The contention of the petitioner that the confession was extracted from him was not accepted for the reason that a teacher, who was in charge of the examination, was incapable of extracting any confession from a probationary IPS Officer, who could even enter the examination hall even avoiding the frisking. Also, the action taken against him under Rule 14 of the Civil Services Examination Rules was considered. That being the 2025:KER:4689 34 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 facts and circumstances which culminated in Annexure A1 discharge order, it cannot be said that there occurred any prejudice to the petitioner on account of the enquiry not being held as in a disciplinary proceedings or for the reason of non- supply of a copy of Annexure R3 report to him. We find that the Tribunal dismissed the original application after considering all such matters and there is no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
This original petition is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE dkr 2025:KER:4689 35 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 APPENDIX OF OP (CAT) 99/2023 PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A1 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. I-
26011/64/2017-IPS.IV DATED 04.05.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A2 TRUE COPY OF E-HALL TICKET ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER BY THE UNION PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION ANNEXURE A3 TRUE COPY OF UNDERTAKING/ADMISSION STATEMENT DATED NIL BY THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A4 TRUE COPY OF REPORT DATED 30.10.2017 SUBMITTED BY THE SUPERVISOR TO THE JOINT SECRETARY, UPSC ANNEXURE A5 TRUE COPY OF SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO. I-
26011/64/2017-IPS.IV DATED 22.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A6 TRUE COPY OF RULE 14 OF THE CIVIL SERVICE EXAMINATIONS PUBLISHED IN THE GAZETTE OF INDIA DATED 22.02.2017 BY THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA ANNEXURE A7 TRUE COPY OF REPLY SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER ON 05.12.2017 BEFORE THE RESPONDENT ANNEXURE A8 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. G.O.MS NO. 822 DATED 07.11.2017 ISSUED BY THE ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, TAMIL NADU TO THE PETITIONER ANNEXURE A9 TRUE COPY OF ORDER NO. I-
26011/64/2017-IPS.II/IV DATED
25.01.2018 ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT TO
THE PETITIONER
2025:KER:4689
36
O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023
ANNEXURE A10 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
INDIAN POLICE SERVICE (PROBATION)
RULES, 1954 ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE A11 TRUE COPY OF RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE
ALL INDIA SERVICES (DISCIPLINE &
APPEAL) RULES ISSUED BY THE CENTRAL
GOVERNMENT
ANNEXURE A12 TRUE COPY OF POSSESSION NOTICE DATED
06.08.2019 ISSUED BY THE CHIEF
MANAGER/AUTHORIZED OFFICER, INDIAN
BANK, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM
ANNEXURE A13 TRUE COPY OF SUMMONS DATED 26.05.2018
IN O.S. NO. 178 OF 2018 ON THE FILE OF
THE ALUVA MUNSIFF COURT, ISSUED TO THE
PETITIONER
ANNEXURE A14 TRUE COPY OF NEWSPAPER CLIPPING
APPEARED IN THE HINDU DAILY DATED
25.08.2018
ANNEXURE R1 TRUE EXTRACT OF RULE 14 OF THE CIVIL
SERVICES EXAMINATION RULES 2017
ANNEXURE R2 TRUE EXTRACT OF RULE 12 OF INDIAN
POLICE SERVICE (PROBATION) RULES 1954
ANNEXURE R3 TRUE COPY OF REPORT OF SUMMARY ENQUIRY
NO.JD/NPA/ENG-SK/18-4 DATED 27.02.2018 SENT BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR, SVP NATIONAL POLICE ACADEMY, HYDERABAD TO THE UNION HOME SECRETARY, NEW DELHI ALONG WITH COVERING LETTER NO.
21011/6/2018/ESTT. DATED 8..03..2018 SENT BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE SVP NATIONAL POLICE ACADEMY HYDERABAD ANNEXURE A15 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY MRS.
JOICY JOY, TRIVANDRUM 2025:KER:4689 37 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 ANNEXURE A16 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE SAJNA, ALUVA ANNEXURE A17 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE LAILA USMAN, ALUVA ANNEXURE A18 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE SALAM AZIZ, ALUVA ANNEXURE A19 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE KUNJADIMA, ALUVA ANNEXURE A20 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE JALEEL K.A., ALUVA ANNEXURE A21 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE SAMJAD ABDUL GAFOOR, MATTANCHERRY ANNEXURE A22 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE MOHAMMED SHABEEB KHAN, KOTTAYAM ANNEXURE A23 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE KARIM AZIZ, ALUVA ANNEXURE A24 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE NOORJAHAN KARIM, ALUVA ANNEXURE A25 TRUE COPY OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY ONE RAJA, CHENNAI EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF ORIGINAL APPLICATION IN O.A. NO. 775 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 01.02.2021 IN O.A.NO. 180/775/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH 2025:KER:4689 38 O.P.(CAT) No.99 of 2023 EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF REJOINDER DATED 13.09.2021 IN O.A.NO. 775 OF 2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH FILED BY THE PETITIONER EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF ORDER DATED 07.06.2023 IN O.A.NO. 180/00775/2019 ON THE FILE OF THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, ERNAKULAM BENCH RESPONDENT ANNEXURES DOCUMENT NO.1 A TRUE COPY OF THE LETTER NO. C. NO.
1006/18190/CR II(I)/2017 DATED
12.06.2024, SEND BY THE ADDL. DIRECTOR
GENERAL OF POLICE, CRIME BRANCH CID,
CHENNAI TO THE SECTION OFFICER OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF HOME
AFFAIRS.
DOCUMENT NO.2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MAHAZAR DATED
30.10.2017 IN FIR NO. 1646/2017
REGISTERED BY THE F2 EGMORE POLICE
STATION, CHENNAI ALONG WITH ENGLISH
TRANSLATION.
DOCUMENT NO.3 A TRUE COPY OF THE UNDERTAKING
ADMISSION STATEMENT/ OF SAFEER KARIM
IN SEIZURE MAHAZAR IN FIR NO.
1646/2017 REGISTERED BY THE F2 EGMORE
POLICE STATION, CHENNAI DATED NIL
ALONG WITH TYPED COPY.