S.R. Singh, J. - (1.) PETITIONER who made his advent in the Central Reserve Police Force as A.S.I. (M) in a purely temporary capacity on his selection which was held on 30.10.1994. has canvassed the validity of the order dated 14.4.1996 (Annexure -3 to the petition) passed by respondent No. 1 thereby dismissing him from service. The" petitioner, it would transpire from the record owes his selection to the post by reason of his being a member of Scheduled Tribe as exacted in the terms and conditions embodied in the appointment order dated 23.12.1994 (Annexure -2 to the writ petition). In terms of the aforestated order, the petitioner produced the certificate evidencing his being a member of Scheduled Tribes. Pursuant to the appointment order, the petitioner joined his duties but subsequently by means of the Impugned order dated 14.4.1996, his services came to be terminated by invoking the provisions contained in the proviso to sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the T.C.S. (T.S.) Rules. 1965. The impugned order is abstracted below for ready reference : "No. C. III.1/96 -CC. Dated the 14.4.1996. OFFICE ORDER In pursuance of the proviso to sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the C.C.S. (T.S.) Rules, 1965, I, O.P.S. Malik. I.P.S.. D.I.G.P., C.R.P.F., Allahabad (U.P.) hereby terminate forthwith the services of No. 95 1860138 ASI (M) P. Srinivasulu of 82 Bn., C.R.P.F. and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. (O.P.S. Malik) I.P.S. DIGP             CRPF Allahabad. 01 To No.951860138 ASI(M) P. Srinivasulu, 82, Bn. CRPF, Faizabad (U.P.) (Through Commandant -82 Bn., CRPF, Faizabad (U.P.) No. C.III. 1/96 -CC. Dated, the 14.4.1996 Copy to the : 1. The Additional DIGP, CC CRPF, Lucknow (UP) for making supplementary Pay Bill for one month's notice period and remit the amount to Commandant. 82 Bn, CRPF.
(2.) COMMANDANT . 82 Bn. CRPF (in triplicate). Original copy be handed over to ASI(M) P. Srinivasulu and his signatures be obtained on the second copy and return to this office duly attested for record. Further, a sum equivalent to one month's pay plus allowances be paid to ASI (M) P. Srinivasulu from your Unit W.A.F. on authority letter subject to recoupment through supplementary Pay Bill. All the outstanding dues including kit articles etc., in respect of above ASI (M) be settled and a copy of N.D.C. be forwarded to this office for record. End. : Service Book. (O.P.S. Malik) IPS       DIGP CRPF, Allahabad. 01" Petitioner initially canvassed the legality of the order before the Andhra Pradesh High Court at Hyderabad by means of the Writ Petition No. 9995 of 96. However, the said petition culminated in being dismissed by the judgment and order dated 29.10.1997 (Annexure -4 to the petition) on the premises that the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad lacked territorial jurisdiction inasmuch as the impugned order was passed by the respondent within the territorial Jurisdiction of this High Court, i.e., the Allahabad High Court. It is in the above perspective that the petitioner instituted the present petition in this Court. 2. I have heard Sri Rajeev Sharma appearing for the petitioner and Sri Tej Prakash appearing for the respondents. The learned counsel for the petitioner began his submission stating that albeit the impugned order is innocuously phrased, it has all the indicia of being based on the allegations that the caste certificate filed by the petitioner manifesting that he belonged to the Scheduled Tribes was in fact 'false' and the petitioner 'got entry into the Central Reserve Police Force as A.S.I. (M) under disguised caste identity by producing a fabricated caste certificate'. Accordingly, the impugned order, submitted the learned counsel, savours of stigma on the petitioner and ought not to have been passed without holding enquiry and without affording opportunity to the petitioner. The learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner was entitled to an opportunity before being condemned for obtaining appointment by producing 'a fabricated caste certificate'. The learned counsel for the respondents in opposition submitted that an ex parts enquiry was held by the authority concerned and it was borne out from the said enquiry that the caste certificate was "forged and fake one" and. therefore, submitted the learned counsel, the respondent was justified in terminating the services of the petitioner. The counsel for the respondent further canvassed that the order impugned herein is a simpliciter order of termination and does not have the reflexes of any stigma. I have anxiously considered the submissions made across the bar. Rule 5 (1) (a) of the Rules aforesaid postulates that the services of a temporary Government servant who is not in quasi -permanent service, shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government servant. Clause (b) of Rule 5 provides that the period of notice shall be one month and proviso to sub -rule (1) visualises that the services of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them Immediately before the termination of his services, or as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Note appended to sub -rule (1) provides the procedure to be adopted by the appointing authority while serving notice on such Government servant under clause (a) of sub -rule (1). The same being not germane to the controversy involved in the present petition is omitted, for the question in the instant case is whether the impugned order has the indicia of any stigma. In B. P. Banerjee v. S. N. Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences. Calcutta. : AIR 1999 SC 983, the Supreme Court was seized with the question as to when an order of termination otherwise simpliciter in nature, would be stigmatic. That was a case of termination of a probationer Judicial Officer. In part 22 of the report, the Apex Court has delved into the question in the following words : "If findings were arrived at in enquiry as to misconduct, behind the back of the officer or without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as 'founded' on the allegations and will be bad. But if the Inquiry was not held, no finding 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 against whom there were complaints. It would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if the employer did not want to Inquire into the truth of the allegations because of delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful about securing adequate evidence. In such a circumstance, the allegation would be a motive and not the foundation and the simple order of termination would be valid."
(3.) PETITIONER herein was a temporary Government servant and the services have been terminated by an order simpliciter invoking statutory powers conferred on the appointing authority while the case before the Supreme Court was that of a probationer but as held in Madan Gopai v. State of Punjab : AIR 1963 SC 531, there is no difference between the cases where the services of a temporary employee are terminated and where the probationer is discharged as held by the Apex Court. The power under the rule aforestated is, however, exercisable on the ground of the work of the employee being found unsatisfactory or on the ground of abolition of posts and not on the ground that the employee was guilty of misconduct of obtaining appointment by producing a 'fabricated caste certificate'. It would be evinced from the counter -affidavit that the appointing authority held ex parte enquiry and on the dint of such enquiry, it was discovered that the caste certificate filed by the petitioner was false and bogus. The order impugned herein is although an order simpliciter but since it is founded on the finding as to misconduct arrived at in enquiry behind the back of the petitioner and without a regular departmental enquiry, the simple order of termination is to be treated as founded on the allegation of misconduct, and will be unsustainable being bad in law. The question whether the caste certificate was genuine or not, ought not have been decided on the basis of ex parts enquiry sans any opportunity being given to the petitioner. Basdeo Tiwary v. Sido Kanhu University and others , is an authority in support of this proposition. In this view of the matter, the order impugned herein does not commend itself to be sustained.;