Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Ors vs Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. on 18 July, 2024
Author: Suresh Kumar Kait
Bench: Suresh Kumar Kait
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 04.07.2024
Judgment pronounced on: 18.07.2024
+ W.P.(C) 15248/2022
UNION OF INDIA & ORS .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Vineet Dhanda, CGSC with Mr.
Abhishrut Singh Kadyan and Mr.
Abhijit Singh, Advocates.
versus
SANJEEV KUMAR & ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Sudhir Nandrajog, Senior
Advocate with Mr. R.S. Kundu, Mr.
Ashish Pandey, Mr. Mukesh Kumar,
Mr. Shree Kant, Mr. Shashank
Gusain, Mr. Anmol Goyal and Mr.
Rinku Parewa, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
[Physical Hearing/Hybrid Hearing (as per request)]
GIRISH KATHPALIA, J.:
1. By way of this writ petition brought under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioners Union of India and postal authorities of
Delhi and Jalandhar have assailed judgment dated 10.03.2022 of the learned
Principal Bench, Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi, passed in OA
No.2756/2019. On service of notice, the respondents entered appearance
through counsel.
1.1 We heard learned counsel for both sides and examined the record
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 1 of 16 pages
including their written submissions.
2. Briefly stated, circumstances leading to the present proceedings are as
follows.
2.1 On 25.02.2014, the Department of Posts, Union of India issued an
advertisement in the daily newspapers for filling up posts of Postal Assistant
(PA)/Sorting Assistant (SA). The respondents successfully participated in
the recruitment process and after completion of requisite formalities, offers
of appointments were issued to them by the petitioners, in pursuance
whereof the respondents joined services vide charge reports dated
17.01.2015 and 14.02.2015.
2.2 On 27.04.2015, petitioner no.3 namely Sr. Superintendent of Post
Offices, Jalandhar Division, issued a memorandum, thereby holding in
abeyance till further orders appointments of those successful candidates of
PA/SA examination for the year 2013-14, who had not been issued
appointment letters. Thereafter, on 09.09.2015, committees were directed to
be constituted by the circle heads of postal authorities for the purposes of
verification of personal details submitted by the said candidates at various
stages of the PA/SA examination. On 17.09.2015, the Divisional Level and
High Power Committees were constituted for verification of personal details
of all selected candidates.
2.3 The High Power Committee constituted by CPMG, Punjab Circle,
Chandigarh submitted report dated 21.01.2016 observing that in case of the
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 2 of 16 pages
present respondents, their signatures on their respective OMR sheets did not
tally with those on the registration forms. For the purposes of forensic
analysis, cases of both respondents were forwarded by the petitioners to the
Central Forensic Laboratory, Chandigarh and the latter submitted reports
dated 17.03.2017 and 02.06.2017 to the effect that the sample signatures of
the respondents did not tally with those on the OMR sheets. On the basis of
the said forensic reports, services of the respondents Sh. Sanjeev Kumar and
Sh. Dhirender Singh were terminated on 01.06.2017 and 11.07.2017
respectively.
2.4 The respondents approached the learned Central Administrative
Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench through Original Applications, which were
allowed vide order dated 19.03.2019, thereby quashing the termination
orders on the ground that in view of orders passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Monu Tomar vs Union of India & Ors., Civil Appeal
No.10513 of 2016 decided on 13.07.2017 the present petitioners were bound
to but failed to supply to the present respondents the documents on the basis
whereof the termination orders had been passed, so that they could submit
their defence. Accordingly, on 10.05.2019 all documents were supplied to
the respondents, granting them 10 days to submit their defence. On
17.05.2019, the respondents submitted their representations, after which on
29.05.2019 and 06.06.2019, services of the respondents were again
terminated.
2.5 Therefore, on 10.07.2019 both respondents filed common OA
2756/2019 before the learned Principal Bench, Central Administrative
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 3 of 16 pages
Tribunal, New Delhi, which Original Application was partly allowed by way
of the impugned order 10.03.2022, thereby remanding their cases to the
petitioners to reconsider them for reinstatement in the light of the contents of
the impugned order after following principles of natural justice. Hence, the
present petition by the Union of India and the postal authorities.
3. During arguments, learned Standing Counsel for Union of India
contended that the impugned order is not sustainable in the eyes of law and
is liable to be set aside. Learned Standing Counsel in his arguments
extensively relied upon the forensic reports of FSL, Chandigarh to impress
upon us that in case of both the respondents, impersonation was committed
by someone who appeared and wrote examination representing themselves
as the respondents. The learned Standing Counsel also argued that in the
case of Monu Tomar (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had not directed
the present petitioner to conduct a detailed departmental enquiry and had
directed only to supply the necessary documents to the present respondents
so that they could submit their defence, and the same having been done,
there was no violation of principles of natural justice, therefore, the
impugned order is liable to be set aside. In support of his arguments, learned
Standing Counsel placed reliance on the judgments in the cases titled
Chatrapal vs The State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., 2024 INSC 115 and State
Bank of India & Ors. vs Palak Modi & Anr., Civil Appeal No.7841-7842
of 2012, decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 03.12.2012. Besides,
learned Standing Counsel also placed heavy reliance on the order of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Monu Tomar (supra), taking us
through the directions of the apex court to supply the necessary documents
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 4 of 16 pages
to the present respondents and contended that same having been done, no
further enquiry was called for.
4. On the other hand, learned Senior Counsel for respondents strongly
contended that termination of services of the respondents solely on the basis
of forensic reports, without testing the same through a departmental enquiry
is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The learned Senior Counsel for
respondents placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
in the case of State of Punjab & Ors. vs. Rafiq Masih (White Washer) &
Ors., (2015) 4 SCC 334. The learned Senior Counsel for respondents also
took us through order dated 11.10.2022 of the predecessor bench in the
cases of other similarly placed candidates and pointed out that the petitioners
failed to produce the DVD/CD of the examination in support of their
allegation of impersonation and also argued that the forensic report is not
reliable because no effort was done to get the thumb marks of the candidates
compared.
5. To begin with, it would be apposite to examine the similarly worded
orders dated 29.05.2019 & 06.06.2019, whereby services of the respondents
were terminated. The termination order passed against the first respondent is
extracted below, and the termination order passed against the other
respondent is similarly worded.
"This is regarding implementation of CAT Case orders dated
19.03.2019 received in this office on 15.04.2019 in OA No
060/01158/2017 titled Sanjeev Kumar V/S UOI & others. Whereas Sh
Sanjeev Kumar was terminated from service on 01.06.2017 vide
Memo No B-2/21/2013-14dated 11.07.2017 vide Sub Rule of the CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the said order the
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 5 of 16 pages
matter was agitated in the Hon'ble CAT Bench Chandigarh and in
Hon'ble CAT its order in OA No 0060/01158/2017 as quoted in the
subject above the order of Judgment is as under:-
"Quashing of the impugned order will not entitle the applicant for
reinstatement and he will not be entitled to other benefits as we have
quashed the impugned order only on the ground that Hon'ble Supreme
court has given a window to the respondents and they have to comply
with the directions given to them in the case of Monu Tomar (Supra).
Respondents are also directed to supply the documents to the
applicant based on which they have passed termination order so that
he can submit his defense."
On the analogy of SPL Case Monu Tomar (Supra), Aggrieved Sh
Sanjeev Kumar was given personal hearing vide this office letter No
B-2/ CAT Case dated 30.04.2019 to avail the opportunity of heard in
person which seems as personal hearing. He attended the meeting in
the chamber of undersigned on dated 10.05.2019 at 11.00 hrs. All the
related documents were examined by him and the photocopies of the
same were handed over to him with full opportunity to submit
representation/defense with if any to this office with in 10 days.
The representation was received in office on 17.05.2019 the put forth
from pleas:-
i). That As per the term and conditions under which his appointment
was made, he had remain on probation for a period for two year from
the date of appointment. I had rendered more than 2 years' service
due to which I had acquired "Permanent Status" and come under the
purview of CCS(CCA) Rules 1965, due to this his services could not
be terminated by invoking the aforesaid provision of CCS (Temporary
Services) Rules 1965, as these rules were no longer applicable in my
case.
ii) As per Article 311 of the constitution of India no person who is a
member of a civil service of the Union or all India or a civil service of
a state or holds a civil post under the uion or a state shall be
dismissed or removed by the authority subordinate to that by which he
was appointed and no such person as aforesaid shall be dismissed or
removed or reduced in rank except after an inquiry in which he has
been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable,
apportunity of being heard in respect of those charges.
iii) That the perusal of your letter No B-2/21/2013-14/Sanjeev Kumar
dated 10.05.2019 revels that the termination order was passed merely
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 6 of 16 pages
on the basis of the report of the Central Forensic Science Laboratory
Chandigarh which held my signature s on various documents as
mentioned therein as disputed. That I do not agree with the
observations of the aforesaid Laboratory due to the following reason
and vehemently contend that I had personally appeared in all the
examinations/ test.
a) the observation of the CFSL Chandigarh as per their "Result of
Examination" dated 02.06.2017 denote that
1) The person who wrote the signature in the enclosed
portions stamped and marked S1 to did not write the
signature in the enclosed portion stamped and marked Q2.
2) The signatures in the enclosed portions stamped and
marked Q3, S1 to S4 have written byone and the same
person.
3) Signature marked Q1is scanned reproductions, its original
is needed for examination
iv) That there is no rule or departmental/ government order, nor any
has been quoted in the letter No B-2/ 21/2013-14 Sanjeev Kumar
dated 10.05.2019 vide which the Opinion of the Central forensic
science Laboratory has to be treated as final, irrefutable and absolute.
Hence termination the services solely on the report of aforesaid
Laboratory is unconstitutional and against the law of the land. It is
emphatically averred that no importance can be attached to the report
of handwriting expert regarding forget signatures unless he/ she is
examined.
v) It is further averred that the report of the CFSL/ handwriting expert
is admissible only under the provisions of section 293 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, 1973 if any trial, inquiry or other proceeding are
conducted under the aforesaid Code and present case was neither an
outcome of nor was a criminal proceeding under the aforesaid code.
Hence laying reliance solely on the report of CFSL, without giving a
further opportunity in the instant case s ultra vires and against the low
of land as quoted above.
vi) I vehemently contend that it was indisputably I who attempted the
OMR sheet (Q2) and I can prove this if a detailed inquiry as
envisaged in Rule 14 of CCS {CCA} Rules, 1965 is held. In that even
I will be able to examine and cross examine the staff/invigilators
and others who has allows me to appear in the examination after
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 7 of 16 pages
establishing my identity as per the hall permit as well as per the
various other identity proofs which were examined before allowing
entry into the examination hall. Moreover the OMR test might have
been conducted under the CCTV surveillance and footage to that
effect can also establish as to who appeared in the said examination.
I accordingly pray for holding a detailed inquiry in the above matter
enabling me to prove the bonafides of my above averment.
vii) It is averred that the present controversy has its origin to be
report/ minutes of the Regional Level High Powered Committee. The
perusal of the detail of the Discrepancies attached as Annezue-1 with
aforesaid report reveals that my name has been mentioned at serial
number 47 of the aforesaid Annexure. The following discrepancy has
been mentioned against that serial "the Appearance of the signature
on OMR Sheet does not tally with resignation form." The signature on
the OMR sheet have been marked as Q1 by the CFSL, the report of the
CFSL , stats that Signature marked Q1 is scanned / reproduction, its
original is need for examination. This means that the original
registration form was not forwarded to the CFSL for verification of
signature marked as Ql hence no report on the questioned document
viz the registration form, which was the bone of contention has been
got confirmed form CFSL. This proves that the proceeding of the
Regional Level high level committee qua Q1 were not confirmed
form the CSFL cannot be held as authentic as it lacks the
confirmation of the apprehensions of the Regional level high
powered committee qua Ql. Hence no action for the termination of my
services was supposed to be taken on the basis of the report of the said
High powered Committee as well as that of the CFSL.
viii) It is further averred that after successful competition of induction
training at PTC Saharanpur I had secured 80.6% marks into the final
test which proves and substantiates that my ability and capability was
above board and this can be well associated with the fact that it wa I
who has appeared in the theory test and signature on OMR sheet
marked as Q2 are very much mine.
I have gone through the case file, representation of the official and
other relevant record of the case and do not agree with the defense/
representation submitted by Sh Sanjeev Kumar the aggrieved:-
1. The Plea put for in the Para No 1 of representation by the aggrieved is
not tenable, As Per CCS (Temporary Service) Rules do not specifically
exclude probationers or person on probation as such. In this case the
appointment of the applicant was on temporary basis and was on
probation for a period of two years which has clearly been mentioned in the
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 8 of 16 pages
clause No 3 of appointment letter dated 16.01.2015. as per Recruitment
Rules circulated vide Directorate letter No 60- 37/2011 dated 11.02.2014,
the period of probation for direct recruits is 2 years. Further as per OM
NO 280201/1/2010 Estt @dated 21.07.2014, probation should not be
treated as mere formality. No Normal declaration shall be necessary in
respect of appointment on probation. The probation shall stand
successfully completed on issue of orders in writing . The confirmation of
the probationer after completion of the period of probation is not
automatic but is to be followed by formal orders. As long as no specific
order of confirmation or satisfactory completion of probation is issued to a
probationer, such a probationer shall be deemed to have continued on
probation.
2. The Plea put for in the Para No 2 of representation by the aggrieved is
not tenable, as the official was neither dismissed nor removed from
service, he was terminated from service vide this office Memo No B-
2/21/2013-14dated 11.07.2017. on the basis of the report of the said High
powered Committee as well as that of the CFSL.
3. & 4 The Plea put for in the Para No 3& 4 of representation by the
aggrieved is not tenable, The Plea put for the by the aggrieved is not
tenable, as the case was reviewed by the Regional Level High Power
Committee and the report was called from the Central Forensic Science
Laboratory Chandigarh that the person who wrote the specimen
signature/ handwriting did not tally with OMR Sheet.
5. The Plea put for in the Para No 5 of representation by the aggrieved is
not tenable, as this is the service matter and Department can issue any
Inquiry for the verification of matter. The matter is only to be decided by the
department that what type of inquiry is required and what action is to be
taken by for come to be conclusive point.
6. The Plea put for in the Para No 6 of representation by the aggrieved is
not tenable, as the Rule is applicable on Permanent/Confirmed employee of
the Department .
7. The Plea put for in the Para No 6 of representation by the aggrieved is
not tenable, as the applicant is submitted his representation without any
supporting documents but the Regional Level high level committee was
confirmed from the CSFL with supporting documents.
So, I Narinder Kumar, after considering the report of Regional
Level High Power committee that the appearance of the signature
on OMR sheet did not tally with the registration form and also the
report of CFSL that the person who wrote the specimen signature/
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 9 of 16 pages
handwriting did not tally with OMR Sheet. I have examined all the
related documents thoroughly and after considering the
representation of Sh Sanjeev Kumar dated 17.05.2019, come to
conclusion that the representation is not convincing and tenable to
grant any relief to the aggrieved applicant in the order of termination
issued vide this office Memo No B-2/21/2013-14 dated 01.06.2017. He
will not be entitled for any benefit as per Hon'ble CAT Chandigarh
orders dated 19.03.2019 in his case. Hon'ble CAT orders dated
19.03.2019 are "Quashing of the impugned order will not entitle the
applicant for reinstatement and he will not be entitled to other benefits
as we have quashed the impugned order only on the ground that
Hon'ble Supreme court has given a window to the respondents and
they have to comply with the directions given to them in the case of
Monu Tomar (Supra)". I Narinder Kumar , Sr Supdt of Post offices,
Jalandhar Division, Jalandhar therefore hereby terminate forthwith
the services or Sh Sanjeev Kumar S/o Sh Rajbir Singh PA Goraya vice
sub-rule (1) of Rule (5) of Central Civil Services ( Temporary Service)
Rules, 1965 with immediate effect.
(emphasis supplied)
6. In view of the above extracted letters terminating the services of the
respondents, there can be no dispute that the said termination of services of
both respondents was stigmatic. Neither of these terminations was a
termination simplicitor ordered during the probation period. Both these
terminations were clearly based upon the allegation that the respondents
adopted unfair means in the recruitment exam by making someone
impersonate. This stigma attached to the termination of the respondents shall
not only cause against them serious prejudice qua future employment
efforts, but would also continue with them till their last breath. And they
have not been given fair opportunity to establish that the allegation against
them is false, because no departmental enquiry was conducted against them.
Rather, the said stigma in itself also has not been established through a
departmental enquiry.
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 10 of 16 pages
7. The issue of termination of services of a government employee during
probation period has been examined by the courts across the country in
plethora of disputes. The legal position that has emerged is that once a
person is recruited through a proper selection process, she cannot claim that
her competence has been tested by the employer, so she has a vested right to
permanently settle in the service. The employer cannot be denied
opportunity to test during service the capacity, integrity, suitability and
utility of the employee. Therefore, the employee must remain on test for a
specific period, known as probation period, before she can permanently
settle in the service. The period of probation gives the employer an
opportunity to watch and test the efficiency, ability, integrity, sincerity and
suitability of the employee. Where the employer, during the period of
probation of the employee feels not satisfied with the work and conduct of
the employee or where the nature of employment being such that it comes to
an end, the employer would be within her right to simply terminate services
of the employee. But such termination of services has to be a termination
simplicitor without insinuating the employee in any manner whatsoever, so
that her future prospects to try for some other employment do not get
hampered.
8. However, where the employer considers it necessary to record the
termination of services of employee for some misconduct, the termination
would cease to be termination simplicitor. Since such termination on the
grounds of some misconduct gets recorded in the service book/record of the
employee, it would be extremely unfair to deprive her an opportunity to
respond and establish her innocence. At the same time, it would also deprive
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 11 of 16 pages
the employer an opportunity to test the veracity of such allegation and lose
an otherwise competent employee. An employee facing termination of her
services by way of stigmatic order cannot be denied a right to establish that
the allegation against her is not truthful and/or the justification in that
regard.
9. In the case of Purshottam Lal Dhingra vs UOI, AIR 1958 SC 36, the
Supreme Court held that it is not the form of termination order but the
substance thereof that must be examined by the court to ascertain if the same
is a penal or stigmatic order in nature and in appropriate cases, the court can
tear the veil behind the termination order which is innocuous on its face and
is a discharge simplicitor.
10. In the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma vs Sanjay Gandhi PGI of
Medical Sciences & Anr., AIR 2002 SC 23, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
held that whenever a probationer challenges termination of her services, the
first task for the court is to apply the test of stigma or the form test and if the
order survives this examination, then substance of the termination would
have to be ascertained; and that where the language of the termination order
imputes something over and above mere unsuitability of the employee for
the job, the order is stigmatic one.
11. In the case of Samsher Singh vs State of Punjab, (1974) 2 SCC 831,
the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed thus:
"64. 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. In the absence of
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 12 of 16 pages
any rules governing the probationer in this respect the authority may
come to the conclusion that on account of inadequacy for the job or
for any temperamental or other object not involving moral turpitude
the probationer is unsuitable for the job and hence must be
discharged. No punishment is involved in this. The authority may in
some cases be of the view that the conduct of the probationer may
result in dismissal or removal on an enquiry. But in those cases the
authority may not hold an enquiry and may simply discharge the
probationer with a view to giving him a chance to make good in other
walks of life without a stigma at the time of termination of probation.
If, on the other hand, the probationer is faced with an enquiry on
charges of misconduct or inefficiency or corruption, and if his
services are terminated without following the provisions of Article
311(2) he can claim protection."
12. In the case of Prithipal Singh vs State of Punjab & Ors, (2002) 10
SCC 133, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held thus:
"7. The aforesaid record plainly reveals recording of misconduct of
the appellant. It records, he has disobeyed the order of his superiors.
Once this is recorded in the service record, which is disclosed by the
respondent, it cannot be said that there is no stigma attached to the
order of discharge. Once there is stigma, the principle is well settled,
an opportunity has to be given before passing any order. Even where
an order of discharge looks innocuous, but on close scrutiny, by
looking behind the curtain if any material exists of misconduct and
which is the foundation of passing of the order of discharge, or such
could be reasonably inferred, then it leaves no room for doubt that
any consequential order, even of discharge, would be construed as
stigmatic. Then opportunity has to be given....."
13. In the present case, not just the substance but even the form of the
termination orders is clearly stigmatic and the same are more in the nature of
dismissal rather termination.
14. As reflected from the said termination orders, the petitioners, on the
basis of their understanding of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Monu Tomar (supra), provided copies of the relevant documents
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 13 of 16 pages
to the respondents, who submitted their detailed representations, challenging
extensively the forensic reports of FSL, Chandigarh and claimed that they
could demolish the same if a detailed enquiry was held. Despite that, the
petitioners in their wisdom opted not to test the veracity of those forensic
reports through a departmental enquiry granting an opportunity to the
respondents to cross examine the authors of those FSL report, and thereby
they deprived the respondents a fair opportunity to be heard.
15. It is trite that expert evidence is a weak piece of evidence. In the
present case, except the said expert evidence (which, strictly speaking, is not
even an evidence because the forensic reports were not got proved through
authors thereof by calling them into the witness box and giving opportunity
to the respondents to cross examine them) there is no other evidence at all to
show that the respondents resorted to any unfair means in the recruitment
exam.
16. During final arguments, we asked the learned counsel for petitioners
as to whether any criminal complaint followed by police investigation was
got lodged and conducted, going by their allegation of impersonation. It was
submitted on behalf of petitioners that no police complaint was lodged by
any of the authorities. But the reason for their having not done so remains
unanswered. And that raises doubts about the veracity of the case set up by
the petitioners to terminate services of the present respondents and many
more. Thus, the FSL report, which is the solitary evidence relied upon by the
petitioners was not tested in accordance with law through even investigation
by police, what to say of a court conducting criminal trial.
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 14 of 16 pages
17. Coming to the argument of petitioners that the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Monu Tomar (supra) directed only supply of relevant
documents, on the basis whereof the successful candidates had to submit
representations and the same was complied with, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court did not direct that no departmental enquiry be conducted against those
successful candidates who had joined service, even if a stigmatic order of
termination of services had to be passed. Further, it appears from order
dated 13.07.2017 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Monu Tomar (supra)
that what was presented before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was that some of
the candidates appearing in the examination had resorted to malpractices;
and it was not disclosed that some of the successful candidates had already
been issued appointment letters and they had joined the services. The said
order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with basically those successful
candidates who were yet to be issued appointment letters. It is under those
circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said case directed that
a formal show cause notice to those candidates was dispensed with and that
they be personally called and explained the allegations so that they may
submit their representations for final decision.
18. In the case of Palak Modi (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for
petitioners, the Hon'ble Supreme Court traversed through plethora of
judicial pronouncements including the decision of the Constitution Bench in
the case of Samsher Singh (supra) and reiterated that a probationer has no
right to hold the post and his services can be terminated at any time during
or at the end of probation period on account of his general unsuitability; that
if the competent authority holds inquiry for judging the suitability of the
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 15 of 16 pages
probationer, and on basis thereof his services are terminated, action of the
authority cannot be castigated as punitive; and that if the allegation of
misconduct constitutes the foundation of the action taken, the ultimate
decision of the competent authority can be nullified on the grounds of
violation of principles of natural justice. The judgment in the case of
Chatrapal (supra) can be of no help to the petitioners because the same dealt
with scope of the High Court while examining the report of the Inquiry
Officer in domestic inquiries.
19. To conclude, the present respondents had already joined services after
being declared successful in the recruitment process but their services were
terminated under probation period by way of a detailed stigmatic order
without conducting a departmental enquiry and that too on the basis of only
a weak piece of evidence in the form of unproved FSL report, therefore,
termination of services of the present respondents cannot be sustained.
20. In view of above discussion, we are unable to find any infirmity in the
impugned order of the learned Tribunal, so the same is upheld and the
petition is dismissed.
GIRISH KATHPALIA
(JUDGE)
SURESH KUMAR KAIT
(JUDGE)
JULY 18, 2024/as/ry
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 15248/2022 Page 16 of 16 pages
