A deemed-confirmed employee cannot be terminated without following the prescribed disciplinary procedure.

Jiwan Bahadur Thapa was engaged as a trainee Route Driver-cum-Conductor in 2000 and appointed provisionally in 2004, subject to a one-year probationary period extendable by one year.

After completing probation, he was treated as a permanent employee; the Corporation later certified his appointment and retirement date.

In 2010, he was terminated following a report questioning his nationality and educational credentials, without charges or a hearing.

His statutory appeal was rejected, and he challenged the termination in a writ petition.

The Single Judge directed the Corporation to provide reasons and an opportunity to be heard but declined to set aside the termination. Thapa appealed.

1. Whether Thapa, having attained permanent status under Regulation 17A, could be terminated without following the procedure prescribed by Regulation 39.

2. Whether the Corporation could treat Thapa as unconfirmed, or keep his antecedent verification pending indefinitely, and terminate him on that basis without a hearing.

3. Whether the termination and appellate orders, and the Single Judge’s refusal to set aside the termination, should be interfered with.

Regulation 17A of the CSTC Employees’ Service Regulations provides that an employee who successfully completes the probationary period under Regulation 17 is deemed a permanent employee.

Regulation 39 requires that, before dismissal, the employee be informed in writing of the grounds and definite charges, provided with the supporting allegations, allowed to submit a written statement, and given an opportunity of hearing.

Regulation 16 permits appointment subject to character and antecedent verification where verification cannot be completed beforehand, but the Court held that such verification cannot remain pending indefinitely without explanation.

The Court also referred to Article 311 of the Constitution in connection with the Single Judge’s finding that the delayed verification and termination without a lawful enquiry violated its protections.

The Court found that Thapa had completed the maximum two-year probationary period and that the Corporation’s own 2005 certification acknowledged his employment and retirement date, supporting his permanent status under Regulation 17A.

The Corporation nevertheless terminated him years later without definite charges, disclosure of the basis for its suspicions, or an opportunity to be heard, contrary to Regulation 39.

The pending-verification argument did not justify withholding the protection of Regulation 17A indefinitely, particularly given the unexplained delay of more than four years after probation ended.

The Court further held that the Single Judge erred in leaving the termination in place while remitting the matter for reconsideration.

The Court set aside the Single Judge’s order, the termination orders, and the Appellate Authority’s order.

It declined to award back wages but directed reinstatement from the date of termination and notional continuity of service until retirement, with that period counted for pensionary benefits.

The Corporation was directed to disburse the pension arrears and other consequential benefits within eight weeks of communication of the judgment.

No order as to costs was made.