M.M. Kumar, J. - (1.) The instant petition is directed against order dated 10.1.2002 (P -II), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, 'the Tribunal'), dismissing the Original Application No. 1232/HR/96. The Tribunal has upheld the order dated 26.11.1996, terminating the services of the petitioner, who was a probationer.
(2.) Facts are not in dispute. The petitioner was appointed as Heavy Duty Driver with the Director, National Dairy Research Institute, Kamal -respondent No. 3 initially for a period of two years. He was put on probation with effect from 18.3.1995, vide order dated 25.3.1995 (P -1). On a complaint filed against the petitioner regarding his educational qualification acquired from Sarvodaya Junior High School, Beharipur Dundahera, Ghaziabad (D.P.), an inquiry was ordered. The petitioner was issued a letter dated 13.11.1996 seeking his explanation as to how he had obtained the certificate mentioning that he remained student in that school from 12.7.1985 to 26.5.1986, whereas the school itself was established in the year 1987 (P -3). The petitioner filed his reply on 19.11.1996 (P -5) claiming that the certificate submitted by him was correct and that he had actually studied in that school during the aforementioned period. He submitted that the regular Principal was not available and, therefore, after his return he was to collect the information from that school. Respondent No. 3, however, found that in the transfer certificate submitted by the petitioner it was mentioned that he studied in the school w.e.f. 12.7.1985 to 26.5.1986 and on verification about the authenticity of the certificate from the school, the Manager intimated that the school was established on 20.6.1987. On the basis of the aforementioned communication the certificate submitted by the petitioner was found fabricated and he was terminated from service vide order dated 26.11.1996 (P -6).
(3.) On the ground that the order dated 26.11.1996, terminating the services of the petitioner, is punitive in nature and that it has been sent to him when he was on leave on 30.11.1996 it was liable to be set aside. The petitioner challenged the order before the Tribunal. He also raised another issue that he was entitled to the benefits of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and the impugned order dated 26.11.1996 (P -6) was liable to be set aside. The order of termination being simplicitor in nature, the Tribunal considered the issue as to whether it was passed within the period of probation or it is an order which is punitive in nature. The Tribunal noticed that the order did not attach any stigma nor it refer to any document or inquiry, which may cause aspersion on the conduct of the petitioner and observed as under: 13. A perusal of the order of termination shows that it does not attach any stigma and it does not refer to any document or enquiry which may cause aspersions (aspersions?) on the conduct of the applicant. The law on this subject is settled that in such a situation as present one, there are two courses open to the employer either to institute a regular enquiry and punish the guilty official in accordance with the Discipline and Appeal Rules or to terminate his services in accordance with the terms of appointment and in the present case the respondents have adopted the latter method. This course of action was permissible in terms of law enunciated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kaushal Kishore Shukla v/s. State of U.P. and Anr. reported as, J.T. 1991(1) S.C. 198.;