Union of India vs Gopika Gopan

Court
Madras High Court

WP No. 44728 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 04-11-2026
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.DHANDAPANI
AND
THE HON'BLE DR.JUSTICE A.D.MARIA CLETE
WP No. 44728 of 2026 And
W.M.P.Nos.50231 and 50234 of 2026
CNR: {HCMA012251612026}
1. Union of India
Represented by the Adjutant General,
Integrated Headquarters of Ministry of Defence
(Army),
Additional Directorate General MP/MP-8 (I of
R)
Adjutant Generals Branch, West Block-Ill, R.K.
Puram, New Delhi - 110 066.
2. The Officer- in- Charge Records
The Madras Regiment,
Wellington (Nilgiris ) 643231
3. The Commanding Officer
Records The Madras Regiment,
Wellington (Nilgiris ) 643231
..Petitioner(s)
Vs
Gopika Gopan
W/o. Amal Krishna,
Multi-Tasking Staff (MTS),
No. 339/A, Jayanthi Nagar, Black Bridge,
Wellington (Nilgiris),
Tamil Nadu - 643 231
..Respondent(s)
Prayer:
Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ
__________
Page1 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP No. 44728 of 2026
of Certiorari, calling for the records relating to the order dated 21 July 2025
passed in O.A.No.310/00388/2021 on the file of the Hon’ble Central
Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and quash the same.
For Petitioner(s): Mr.V.Balasubramanian
Senior Panel Counsel
For Respondent(s):
ORDER
(Order of the Court was made by M.Dhandapani J.)
This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of Writ of Certiorari,
calling for the records relating to the order dated 21 July 2025 passed in
O.A.No.310/00388/2021 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench and quash the same.
2.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners
submitted that the respondent was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff at Records,
The Madras Regiment, Wellington (Nilgiris) vide appointment order dated
29.09.2016. The appointment was expressly temporary, was subject to
probation period of two years and expressly stipulated that during probation her
services were liable to be terminated without assigning any reason. Upon
scrutiny of the service documents and annual performance appraisal reports, the
__________
Page2 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP No. 44728 of 2026
Board found the respondent unsuitable for confirmation and recommended that
her probation be extended by one year and the same was communicated to the
respondent on 28.09.2018 well before the expiry of her initial probation. Since
the respondent did not establish her suitability during the extended probation,
vide order dated 23.09.2019, her probationary employment was terminated with
effect from 24.09.2019. Aggrieved by the same, the respondent approached the
Central Administrative Tribunal, Chennai Bench and the Tribunal allowed the
O.A. and directed the petitioners to put back the respondent on duty with
immediate effect with consequential retiral benefits and observed that no salary
shall be paid to the respondent during the period from her termination till her
reinstatement and aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have filed this writ
petition.
3.The learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners further
submitted that a person is appointed on probation in order to assess his/her
suitability for absorption in the service to which he/she has been appointed. The
appointing authority may declare successful completion or extend the period of
probation or terminate the services of a temporary employee on probation on the
basis of evaluation of performance. He further submitted that during the
extended probation period, the respondent applied for six days medical leave
from 29.07.2019 to 03.08.2019 on 29.07.2019 and since the certificate produced
__________
Page3 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP No. 44728 of 2026
by the respondent did not conform to Rule 19 of the Central Civil Services
(Leave) Rules, 1972, the leave sought for by the respondent was refused,
however, the respondent absented herself. On 02.08.2019, the Duty Junior
Commissioned Officer, accompanied by a civilian employee was deputed to her
residence to ascertain her condition and it was found that she had already left
the station three days earlier for her home town in Kerala. Thereby, her services
was terminated, however, the Central Administrative Tribunal, without
considering the above aspects, directed the petitioners to put the respondent
back on duty, which is not sustainable one. In support of his contentions, the
learned Senior Panel Counsel relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex
Court reported in (2002) 1 SCC 520 [Pavanendra Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay
Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences and another] .
4.Heard the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing for the petitioners.
Since this Court is not inclined to pass any adverse order as against the
respondent, notice to the respondent is dispensed with.
5.Admittedly, the respondent was appointed as Multi Tasking Staff at
Records, The Madras Regiment, Wellington (Nilgiris) vide appointment order
dated 29.09.2016. Since the respondent’s service was not satisfactory during
the probation period, her probation was extended by one year. It is alleged that
__________
Page4 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP No. 44728 of 2026
during the extended probation period, without obtaining necessary permission,
she went to her home town in Kerala. If such allegation is made, the petitioners
ought to have initiated disciplinary proceedings before passing the termination
order, however, the petitioners without conducting any enquiry, straight away
passed the termination order. The termination order is captive punishment for
civil service. Thereby, the Tribunal rightly set aside the termination order on
the ground that order of termination is not termination simplicitor it is by way of
punishment, which is impermissible one. Hence, the impugned order warrants
no interference.
6.The decision relied upon by the learned Senior Panel Counsel appearing
for the petitioners is not applicable to the present case on hand since in the said
decision, order of termination was passed after conducting enquiry, whereas, in
the present case, no enquiry was conducted by the petitioners before passing the
order of termination, which is clear violation of principles of natural justice.
7.This writ petition is dismissed. The petitioners are directed to reinstate
the respondent with immediate effect with consequential retiral benefits.
However, no salary shall be paid to the respondent during the period from her
termination till her reinstatement. The said exercise shall be completed within a
period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The
__________
Page5 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP No. 44728 of 2026
petitioners are granted liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings as against the
respondent, conduct enquiry, provide opportunity to the respondent and
thereafter pass appropriate orders, if so aggrieved. No costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
(M.D.I.,J.) (A.D.M.C.,J.)
04-11-2026
Index: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-speaking order
Neutral Citation: Yes/No
pri
To
The Central Administrative Tribunal,
Chennai Bench.
__________
Page6 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )

WP No. 44728 of 2026
M.DHANDAPANI, J.
AND
DR.A.D.MARIA CLETE, J.
pri
WP No. 44728 of 2026
And
W.M.P.Nos.50231 and 50234 of 2026
04-11-2026
__________
Page7 of 7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 10/11/2026 05:52:24 pm )