Termination founded on impersonation is punitive and requires an inquiry and an opportunity to respond.

The applicant was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission and joined on 19 August 2015.

His appointment order prescribed a two-year probation period, with confirmation subject to his being found fit for permanent retention.

His APAR gradings were “Very Good,” and no probation-extension order was issued.

The respondents later relied on CFSL reports stating that the applicant’s photograph, signatures and handwriting did not match those of the person who appeared in the selection examination.

Without notice or a hearing, they terminated his services on 28 September 2018 under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

The applicant challenged the termination before the Tribunal.

1. Whether the termination, though expressed as an order under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, was punitive because it was founded on an allegation of impersonation.

2. Whether the respondents could terminate the applicant’s services on that basis without a regular enquiry or an opportunity for him to answer the allegation and challenge the material relied upon.

Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, permits termination of a temporary employee in accordance with its terms, but the form of an order does not determine its true character: where misconduct or an adverse allegation is the foundation of termination, the order is punitive and cannot be insulated from procedural safeguards by being framed as a discharge simpliciter.

The Tribunal relied on V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab, 2000 (2) SCT 327, for the principle that a probationer’s stigmatic termination without enquiry and an opportunity to be heard is illegal.

It also referred to Sumit Kumar, O.A. No. 75/2021, decided 3 December 2025, and Bhupendra Singh v. Union of India, Writ No. 35333 of 2016, decided 30 October 2018, in support of giving an employee an opportunity to meet allegations that form the basis of an adverse decision.

An expert report is not conclusive by itself; where it is relied upon for serious adverse action, the affected employee must have an opportunity to rebut it.

The respondents’ own case was that they terminated the applicant because CFSL reports indicated a mismatch and they suspected impersonation—not because of unsatisfactory performance during probation.

The allegation therefore formed the foundation of the termination and made it punitive in substance, notwithstanding the order’s reliance on Rule 5.

The respondents investigated the allegation without associating the applicant, notifying him of the case against him, or allowing him to contest the expert material.

Because the reports were evidence rather than conclusive proof, and the allegation carried serious consequences, the absence of an opportunity to respond violated natural justice.

It quashed the termination order and directed reinstatement.

The applicant was denied salary for the period he had not worked, but that period was to count for seniority, promotion and notional increment.

The respondents remained at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with the rules.

No order as to costs was made.