Termination founded on misconduct is punitive and requires a formal inquiry regardless of temporary service status.

The applicant was appointed as Grade-II (DASS)/Assistant Section Officer in the Department of Food, Supplies and Consumer Affairs, GNCTD, on July 10, 2019

Prior to this appointment, he had appeared in a separate examination for the post of Primary Teacher conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB) on September 30, 2018

Upon scrutiny, DSSSB alleged that an unknown person had impersonated the applicant in the Teacher's examination.

Consequently, on March 17, 2020, DSSSB debarred the applicant for life from all its examinations, effective retrospectively from September 30, 2018, and cancelled his candidature for all prior examinations

Acting on this debarment, the respondent department terminated the applicant’s current services on September 30, 2020, under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, without conducting a departmental inquiry

The applicant challenged this termination as being arbitrary, stigmatic, and disproportionate.

1. Whether the termination of the applicant’s service under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules was a termination simpliciter or a punitive and stigmatic order requiring a formal inquiry

2. Whether the retrospective application of the debarment order to cancel the applicant's selection in a separate, prior recruitment process is legally sustainable

3. Whether the imposition of lifetime debarment alongside termination of service violates the principles of natural justice and the doctrine of proportionality

The Tribunal applied Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, regarding the termination of temporary employees

It relied on the Supreme Court precedents in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India, which establish that if the "foundation" of a termination order is misconduct, it is punitive and requires constitutional safeguards

The principle from V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab was cited to establish that even a probationer cannot be terminated for misconduct without a regular inquiry

Furthermore, the Tribunal applied the doctrine of proportionality as recognized in Om Kumar v. Union of India

the rule against retrospective penal action established in K.C. Arora v. State of Haryana

The Tribunal reasoned that although the termination was couched in the language of Rule 5 (termination of a temporary employee), its actual foundation was the allegation of impersonation in a separate exam, making it stigmatic and punitive rather than administrative

Since no show-cause notice was issued and no inquiry was conducted, the order violated the principles of natural justice and the mandate of Article 14

The Tribunal found the retrospective effect of the debarment (cancelling prior candidatures) to be legally untenable as penal consequences cannot generally be imposed retrospectively

It further noted a lack of nexus between the alleged misconduct in the Teacher's exam and the applicant’s current service, where he had a positive performance record

Finally, the Tribunal held that the respondents acted mechanically by terminating the applicant solely based on DSSSB's communication without independent application of mind, resulting in a punishment that was grossly disproportionate to the alleged act

It held that the termination was legally unsustainable due to its stigmatic nature, lack of due process, and violation of the principle of proportionality

The Tribunal directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant with all consequential benefits

However, the respondents were granted liberty to take any further action in accordance with the law after following the due process of a regular inquiry

No costs were awarded