KULPREET SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS O.A. has been filed for quashing the impugned order dated 24.7.2012 passed by respondent No. 3 (Annexure A -1) with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay. Briefly stated the case of the applicant is that pursuant to the relevant advertisement for two posts of Drivers, he submitted his application and ultimately got selected. He was appointed w.e.f. vide letter dated 14.9.2010 (Annexure -5). Thereafter, he started working on the said post. After about more than a year, a memorandum dated 16.1.2012 issued by respondent No. 3 was received saying that complaint has been received indicating irregularities during the recruitment process. Therefore, he was asked to submit his reply as to why his appointment may not be cancelled in the light of the findings of the Enquiry Committee (Annexure -A -6). The applicant submitted his reply dated 27.1.2012 denying the charges, and also sought copies of 9 papers as referred in the Memorandum dated 16.1.2012, to enable him to submit complete reply (Annexure A -7). But strangely, no documents were given to him. Instead, after about three months another Memo dated 24.4.2012 was issued (Annexured -8) saying that additional information, if any, which the applicant thinks important and relevant to substantiate his case, may be submitted within 10 days. The applicant immediately, sent a letter dated 7.5.2012 stating that by means of his letter dated 27.1.2012, he had asked for certain documents in accordance with the principles of natural justice. But till date, none of those documents, have been made available. Therefore, he again made a request for supply of those documents so that he may submit his proper reply. But instead of supplying any documents, the impugned order dated 24.7.2012 was issued terminating the services of the applicant. The applicant was appointed on probation for two years, and at the time of his termination, he was working as probationer. The law pertaining to termination of the service of a probationer is settled. In such cases, if an inquiry is conducted behind the back of the probationer and on that basis, he is terminated, it would be bad in law. The show cause notice makes a mention about an inquiry, but the applicant was never associated with the same. Moreover, the termination has been made by passing a stigmatic order which vitiates the impugned termination order. The termination order says that the applicant got selected by illegal means. But no such stigmatic or punitive order can be passed without associating the employee in the inquiry if any. Hence this O.A.

(2.) THE respondents have contested the O.A. by filing a detailed C.A. saying that the services of the applicant were terminated under CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the relevant Para 7 of which provides as under:

(3.) THE applicant has filed rejoinder affidavit denying the averments of the C.A. and reiterating his own pleadings.