Thursday, 23, Apr, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Commissioner Of Police, Deputy ... vs Regional Secretary, Board Of ...
2005 Latest Caselaw 241 Del

Citation : 2005 Latest Caselaw 241 Del
Judgement Date : 11 February, 2005

Delhi High Court
Commissioner Of Police, Deputy ... vs Regional Secretary, Board Of ... on 11 February, 2005
Equivalent citations: 117 (2005) DLT 659, 2005 (80) DRJ 727
Author: V Jain
Bench: V Jain, J Singh

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. This petition can be disposed of at this stage itself as we have perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(for short `the C.A.T.'). The C.A.T. relying upon Deepti Prakash Benerjee vs. S.N.Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences has held that the principles of natural justice were violated if the service of the respondent was terminated on the ground that he had submitted forged certificate and no opportunity was given to him to explain as to whether the report which had been received by the petitioner regarding the forgery was correct or not. The case of the respondent was that he was not at fault as he had lost the original certificate and had been denied the copy of the certificate which was lying with the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that there was no question of giving any show cause notice to the respondent as the service was terminated simplicitor under proviso of Rule 5 (1) (a) of CCS(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that in the termination order the reason for terminating the services of the respondent was nowhere mentioned, therefore no notice was required to be given. We are afraid we cannot accept the reasoning of the petitioners that the service of an individual on probation and training can be dispensed with in terms of Rule 5 of the CCS(Temporary Services) Rules even if the basis for termination is the allegation of committing a forgery with regard to his certificate of educational qualification. We are of the considered view that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to give an opportunity to the respondent to explain his case as the termination order was, in fact, punitive in nature. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Interim order is vacated.

2. However, we give liberty to the petitioners to initiate an enquiry if they so desire so as to ascertain the truth regarding certificates of respondent and take action in accordance with law.

3. With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IDRC

 

LatestLaws Partner Event : IJJ

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter