Delhi High Court
Union Of India And Anr vs Manoj Kumar on 30 July, 2025
Author: Navin Chawla
Bench: Navin Chawla
$~8, 10 to 17
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 30.07.2025
+ W.P.(C) 10233/2023 & CM APPL. 39600/2023
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
MANOJ KUMAR .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 10228/2023 & CM APPL. 39590/2023
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR .....Petitioners
versus
HARKESH MEENA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 10230/2023 & CM APPL. 39594/2023
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
RAKESH KUMAR .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 12741/2023 & CM APPL. 50233/2023
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
SANDEEP KUMAR .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 13025/2023 & CM APPL. 51474/2023
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
SUNIL KUMAR .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 13494/2023 & CM APPL. 53285/2023
UNION OF INDIA & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
LALIT BANSAL .....Respondent
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10233/2023 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 1 of 5
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:21:24
+ W.P.(C) 13520/2023 & CM APPL. 53376/2023, CM APPL.
72401/2024
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
SATISH KUMAR MEENA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 13522/2023 & CM APPL. 53427/2023, CM APPL.
72382/2024
UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
BHEEM SINGH MEENA .....Respondent
+ W.P.(C) 13545/2023 & CM APPL. 53541/2023, CM APPL.
72270/2024
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH THE SECRETARY
MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATIONS AND INFORMATION
TECHNOLOGY & ANR. .....Petitioners
versus
RAJESH MEENA .....Respondent
Present for the petitioners:
Ms.Nidhi Raman, CGSC for UOI with
Mr.Arnav Mittal, Adv
Mr.Siddhartha Sinha, SPC for Union
Present for the respondents:
Mr.Prateek Dhanda, Adv
Mr.Banka Bihari Panda, Mr.Lokesh
Bharti, Advs
Mr.Jatin Parashar, Mr.Prateek Dhanda
& Mr.Rohit Bhagat
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MADHU JAIN
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed W.P.(C) 10233/2023 & CONNECTED MATTERS Page 2 of 5
By:REYMON VASHIST
Signing Date:01.08.2025
18:21:24
NAVIN CHAWLA, J. (ORAL)
1. These petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by
the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New
Delhi (in short, 'Tribunal'). As they raise similar issues, they have
been taken up together. For sake of convenience, the OA numbers, the
date of the Impugned Order and the corresponding Writ Petitions
numbers are being given in a form of a table hereinbelow:-
Writ Petition No. O.A. No. Date of the Order
W.P.(C) 10233/2023 1636/2019 23.11.2022
W.P.(C) 10228/2023 1639/2019 23.11.2022
W.P.(C) 10230/2023 1640/2019 23.11.2022
W.P.(C) 12741/2023 1635/2019 06.03.2023
W.P.(C) 13025/2023 464/2020 09.02.2023
W.P.(C) 13494/2023 318/2020 08.02.2023
W.P.(C) 13520/2023 761/2019 08.02.2023
W.P.(C) 13522/2023 765/2019 08.02.2023
W.P.(C) 13545/2023 764/2019 08.02.2023
2. By the Impugned Orders, the learned Tribunal has allowed the
OA(s) and has set aside the orders terminating the services of the
respondents. The learned Tribunal has further remitted the inquiry
back to the competent authority with a direction to reinstate the
respondents, however, reserving liberty to take further action against
them, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and the provisions
of the rules governing the subject.
3. We need not dwell into details of the facts and submissions
made by the learned counsels for the parties, for the reason that for a
similar selection process and in a challenge to similar orders, this
Court, in Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr.,
2024:DHC:5282-DB, has dismissed the challenge of the petitioners
herein, inter alia, holding therein that the orders terminating the
services of the respondent were stigmatic in nature and were not
simpliciter orders of termination of services during the probationary
period, rather they were based on an allegation that the respondents
had adopted unfair means in the recruitment process by
impersonation; the same attaches a stigma on the respondent and shall
cause them great prejudice even in matters of future employment
efforts. The Court held that, therefore, they were to be offered a
reasonable opportunity of establishing that the allegations against
them are false, however, as no departmental inquiry was conducted
against them, the termination orders could not be sustained. This
Court further observed that mere reliance on the FSL report for
terminating the services of the respondents may not be sufficient. The
Court finally concluded as under:-
"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."
4. The above Judgment of this Court has been upheld by the
Supreme Court vide its Order dated 16.12.2024, passed in SLP (C)
bearing Diary No. 55214/2024.
5. The above Judgment was followed by this Court in Union of
India & Ors. v. Shri Sukhvinder, 2024:DHC:6636-DB, which
Judgment was again upheld by the Supreme Court vide its Order dated
03.01.2025 passed in SLP (C) bearing Diary No. 55633/2024.
6. Though the learned counsels for the petitioners have sought to
distinguish the above Judgments, however, we find that the Judgments
squarely apply to the facts of the case as the respondents have
participated in a similar recruitment process as the respondents in the
above petitions, and their services have been terminated in a similar
manner and for the same reasons as the respondents therein.
7. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petitions. The
same, along with the pending applications, are dismissed.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J
MADHU JAIN, J
JULY 30, 2025/rv/ik
