A probationer’s termination founded on misconduct allegations is punitive and requires a departmental inquiry.

The applicant, appointed as Multi-Tasking Staff after selection in the SSC examination, was served a memorandum alleging 11 days’ unauthorised absence and referring to a police case in which he had been acquitted.

After he denied the allegations, the respondents terminated his services under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

The applicant challenged the termination, contending that it was founded on allegations of misconduct and had been imposed without a departmental inquiry. The respondents acknowledged that no inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, had been conducted.

1. Whether the termination, though expressed as an order under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was in substance founded on allegations of misconduct and therefore punitive.

2. Whether the termination could be sustained when no departmental inquiry had been conducted.

Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, permits termination of a temporary employee, but an order framed as termination simpliciter may be examined by looking at its foundation and surrounding circumstances.

Under the principles discussed in Chander Prakash Shahi v. State of U.P., a probationer’s termination is punitive where it is founded on misconduct rather than a bona fide assessment of suitability; the form of the order is not decisive.

The Tribunal also relied on the principles concerning inquiry and natural justice stated in District Manager, Tamil Nadu State Marketing Corporation Ltd. v. S. Kottaisamy and the Delhi High Court’s decision in W.P.(C) No. 9619/2026, which upheld the Tribunal’s approach in Deepak v. Union of India.

Where the foundation of termination is misconduct, the applicable disciplinary procedure and a proper opportunity to defend must be provided.

The Tribunal found that the termination followed a memorandum setting out specific allegations of unauthorised absence and referring to the applicant’s criminal case. Those allegations, rather than an independent assessment of his suitability during probation, formed the basis for the action.

The respondents’ use of Rule 5(1) did not alter the substantive character of the decision, and they admitted that no disciplinary inquiry had taken place. Applying the distinction between termination simpliciter and punitive termination, the Tribunal concluded that the order could not stand without the required inquiry and opportunity to defend.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant forthwith from the date of termination and grant consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules and instructions, preferably within four weeks of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The respondents remained at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law; there was no order as to costs.