Union Of India & Ors. vs Shri Deepak

$~67
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 9619/2026
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Ms. Arushi Singh, SPC for UOI
along with Ms. Manviya Arun, Ms. Amrisha
Kumari & Mr. Abhinav Vijayaran, Advs.

versus
SHRI DEEPAK .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Ankur Chhibber, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. Shashwat Sharma, Advs.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C. HARI SHANKAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD KUMAR

JUDGMENT (ORAL)
% 20.07.2026

C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

1. The respondent was appointed as Assistant Central Intelligence
Officer Grade-II in the Intelligence Bureau on 16 January 2023.

2. While he was on probation, his services were terminated by the
petitioner vide order dated 15 February 2024 invoking Rule 5(1) of the
CCS (Temporary Services) Rules 1965.

3. Aggrieved thereby, the respondent approached the Central
Administrative Tribunal by way of OA 4686/2024.

4. Though the order of termination of the respondent appeared
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 1 of 8

innocuous on its face, the Tribunal, in order to satisfy itself as to the
motive or foundation of the order, required the petitioner to produce,
before it, the file relating to the decision to terminate the respondent’s
service in a sealed cover. When it was so produced, the following
noting was found in the file:

“3. Accordingly, during the course of the hearing, the
respondents were directed to produce the relevant departmental file
relating to the applicant in a sealed cover, the contents thereof
reveal the following:

“I. While posted at ICP, IGI Airport, he was found to
have illegally favoured immigration clearance for one
passenger (Ritik) travelling to Baku (Azerbaijan), whose
boarding pass had already been refused by the IC of the
previous shift. He misused his Airport Entry Pass (AEP) to
seek entry into the airport beyond office hours without any
justification, apparently with the purpose of facilitating a
private person.

II. He contacted other IB officers on duty at IGI
Airport in the process of seeking immigration clearance for
Ritik. The exchange of monetary transactions and travel
documents of various persons reflects his direct
involvement in acts unbecoming of a Government servant.

III. Shri Deepak also admitted/claimed his involvement
in corruption in association with other IB officers on airport
duty, namely Shri M.K. Ray, ACIO-I/Exe, Mr. Bhookesh,
ACIO-I/Exe and other IB officials.

IV. Shri Deepak purchased a new Hyundai car, raising
suspicion of disproportionate assets. Several UPI
transactions of 210-20 thousand to his SBI account also
indicate the same.

V. In view of the relevant documents forwarded by
FRRO Delhi regarding the illegal activities of Shri Deepak
during his posting with BOI, it is evident that his behaviour
is in contravention of the CCS (Conduct) Rules and his
activities render him unsuitable for a sensitive organization
like the Intelligence Bureau.”

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 2 of 8

5. On perusing the aforesaid noting, the Tribunal proceeded to
allow the respondent’s OA with the following reasoning:

“10. It is well settled that the services of a probationer may be
terminated if the employer forms an opinion that the employee is
not suitable for confirmation. However, the law equally recognizes
a distinction between a termination simpliciter and a termination
which is founded upon allegations of misconduct. If the order of
termination is merely based on an assessment of suitability during
probation, the employer may legitimately terminate the services of
the probationer without conducting a detailed inquiry. However,
where the termination is founded upon allegations of misconduct
circumstances indicate that the order is punitive in nature, the
employer is required to follow the principles of natural justice and
conduct a proper departmental inquiry оr where the surrounding
circumstances indicate that the order is punitive in nature, the
employer is required to follow the principles of natural justice and
conduct a proper departmental inquiry.

11. The aforesaid principle has been reiterated in a catena of
judgments and has also been discussed by this Tribunal in the case
1
of Sheetal vs. Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors . In the said
judgment, reliance was placed upon the decision of the Coordinate
Bench of this Tribunal in Rinku Kumar & Ors. vs. Government of
2
NCT of Delhi & Ors. . In para 17 of the judgment in Rinku Kumar
(supra), the Tribunal observed that where termination of a
probationer, though couched in innocuous language, is actually
based upon allegations of misconduct and is preceded by an
inquiry in which the employee was not afforded an opportunity of
defence, such termination cannot be treated as termination
simpliciter. The Tribunal held that in such circumstances the order
becomes punitive and stigmatic in nature and cannot be sustained
unless preceded by a full-fledged departmental inquiry. The
Tribunal further observed that while determining whether the
termination of a probationer is simpliciter or punitive, the Court or
Tribunal is entitled to lift the veil and examine the surrounding
circumstances to ascertain what actually weighed with the
employer while passing the order of termination.

12. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in The District Manager,
Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. & Anr. VS. S.
3
Kottaisamy has also held that where termination of service is

1
2013 SCC OnLine CAT 1859
2
Order dated 8 December 2023 in OA 3902/2023
3
MANU/SCOR/41043/2022
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 3 of 8

based upon allegations and the employee disputes or retracts the
alleged statements, termination without affording an opportunity of
hearing would be violative of the principles of natural justice and
that it is obligatory for the employer to conduct a proper inquiry
before passing such an order.

13. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present
case, it becomes evident that although the impugned order is
worded as a termination simpliciter passed under Rule 5(1) of the
CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the material placed before
this Tribunal clearly reveals that the termination was preceded by
allegations relating to misconduct during the applicant's posting at
IGI Airport. The records produced before us indicate that these
allegations formed the basis for invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS
(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and terminating the services of
the applicant. Therefore, it cannot be said that the termination was
merely based on an overall assessment of the applicant's suitability
during probation. Rather, the surrounding circumstances
unmistakably indicate that the termination was founded upon
allegations of misconduct. Once the foundation of the order is
misconduct, the respondents were required to follow the procedure
prescribed under the relevant disciplinary rules and conduct a
proper departmental inquiry by affording the applicant an
opportunity to defend himself.

14. In the present case, admittedly, no such inquiry was
conducted before terminating the services of the applicant. The
respondents instead invoked Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary
Service) Rules, 1965 and passed the impugned order of
termination. Such action, in the light of the settled legal position

discussed above, cannot be sustained in law.”


6. Following the aforesaid reasoning, the OA was allowed in the
following terms on the basis of the aforesaid reasoning:

“15. Accordingly, the present O.A. deserves to be allowed and the
same is allowed with the following orders:-

(i) The impugned termination order dated 15.02.2024 and the
appellate order dated 23.10.2024 are quashed and set aside.

(ii) The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in
service forthwith from the date on which he was terminated from
service.

(iii) The applicant shall be entitled to consequential
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 4 of 8

benefits in accordance with the relevant rules and
instructions on the subject.

(iv) The respondents shall comply with the aforesaid
directions as expeditiously as possible and preferably
within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this
order.

(v) The respondents shall be at liberty to initiate
disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, if so advised,
in accordance with the relevant rules and law and law
governing the subject.”


7. Aggrieved thereby, the Union of India is before us in the
present writ petition.

8. We have heard Ms. Aarushi Singh, learned Counsel for the
petitioner and Mr. Ankur Chhibber, learned Senior Counsel for the
respondent at some length.

9. The issue in controversy is no longer res integra . It is settled
that, even in the case of a probationer, an order of termination, if
based on allegations which may tantamount to misconduct, requires
the officer concerned to be afforded a show cause notice and an
opportunity to explain before any order of termination is passed.

10. We may refer to the following passages from the judgment of
4
the Supreme Court in Chander Praksh Shahi v. State of UP :

13. Following the decision of Parshotam Lal Dhingra
5 6
case this Court in State of Bihar v. Gopi Kishore Prasad held that
if the services of a probationer are terminated on the basis of an
inquiry into the allegations of misconduct and inefficiency, the

4
(2000) 5 SCC 152
5
Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India, AIR 1958 SC 36
6
AIR 1960 SC 689
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 5 of 8

order would be punitive. It was pointed out that in the case of a
probationer, it is always open to the Government to hold an inquiry
merely to assess the merits of the employee to find out whether he
was fit to be retained in service and confirmed. In another case
relating to a probationer, namely, in State of Orissa v. Ram
7
Narayan Das where the services were governed by Rule 55-B of
the Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules
which provided that where the services of a probationer were
intended to be terminated either during the period of probation or at
the end of that period for any fault or on account of his
unsuitability, he would be apprised of the grounds of unsuitability
and would also be afforded an opportunity to show cause against it
before orders are passed against him, it was held that the
termination order would not become punitive merely because of an
antecedent inquiry but the real object or purpose of the inquiry had
to be found out whether it was held merely to assess the general
unsuitability of the employee or it was held into charges of
misconduct or inefficiency etc. In Ranendra Chandra
8
Banerjee v. Union of India which again was a case relating to a
probationer, it was held that on account of Rule 55-B of the Civil
Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules if the inquiry
was held for the limited purpose of finding out whether the
employee was fit to be retained or not, the said inquiry would not
make the order punitive as the inquiry could not be related to any
misconduct of the employee. This view was reiterated in Jagdish
9
Mitter v. Union of India . In Madan Gopal v. State of
10
Punjab the order by which the services of the employee were
terminated was an order simpliciter in nature, which was
innocuously worded, but it was held by this Court that the form of
the order was not decisive and the Court could go behind that order
to find out whether it was founded upon the misconduct of the
employee.
*
34. If this procedure is followed and the services are
terminated thereafter, it would not amount to a punitive action. The
rule being mandatory in nature, compliance therewith would not
alter the nature of the order passed against the probationer. This
aspect was considered by this Court in two decisions, namely, State
of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das and Ranendra Chandra
Banerjee v. Union of India in terms of Rule 55-B of the Civil
Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, which, in all
respects, is akin to para 541 of the U.P. Police Regulations quoted
above. The relevant portion of Rule 55-B which was extracted in
the case of State of Orissa v. Ram Narayan Das is quoted below:

7
AIR 1961 SC 177
8
AIR 1963 SC 1552
9
AIR 1964 SC 449
10
AIR 1963 SC 531
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 6 of 8

“Where it is proposed to terminate the employment of a
probationer, whether during or at the end of the period of
probation, for any specific fault or on account of his
unsuitability for the service, the probationer shall be
apprised of the grounds of such proposal and given an
opportunity to show cause against it, before orders are
passed by the authority competent to terminate the
employment.”

11. Ms. Singh has placed reliance, before us, on the judgment of a
coordinate bench of this Court in WP (C) 15486/2024 ( Aman Pratap
11
Singh v. GNCTD ), specifically drawing attention to para 19 thereof,
which, in turn, relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Pavnendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi Post Graduate
12
Institute of Medical Sciences .

12. The issue in Pavnendra Narayan Verma was qualitatively
different from that before us and before the Supreme Court in
Chander Praksh Shahi .

13. That was a case in which the services of a probationer were
dispensed with on the ground that they were unsatisfactory. The issue
before the Supreme Court was whether a mere reference to the service
being unsatisfactory was sufficient to treat it as stigmatic as would
necessitate an inquiry before termination of the petitioner in that case.
The Supreme Court has held that, as a mere reference to the quality of
the service rendered by the petitioner as unsatisfactory did not cast a
stigma, the termination could be effected without complying with the
principles of natural justice.

11
2026 SCC OnLine Del 518
12
( 2002) 1 SCC 250
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 7 of 8

14. As against that, in the present case, the allegations against the
respondent are extremely serious. They may be true or they may be
false. From a perusal of the noting on the file, it is clear that the
allegations constitute the foundation of the decision to terminate the
respondent from service and not merely the motive thereof.

15. We, therefore, are satisfied that, before terminating the
respondent’s service on the basis of such an allegation, the respondent
ought to be afforded an opportunity to show cause and principles of
natural justice were required to be followed as held by the Supreme
Court in Chander Praksh Shahi .

16. In that view of the matter, we do not find any cause to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the Tribunal which, in our view, has
viewed the matter from the correct perspective.

17. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed in limine .

18. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the
merits of the allegations against the respondent.


C. HARI SHANKAR, J.

VINOD KUMAR, J.
JULY 20, 2026
dsn
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed By:AJIT
KUMAR
Signing Date:24.07.2026
14:25:41
W.P.(C) 9619/2026 Page 8 of 8