Termination of a temporarily-status casual labourer for misconduct requires a procedurally fair inquiry, not mere fact-finding.

The applicant was engaged as a daily-rated casual labourer in the Regional Passport Office, Lucknow on 3 December 1991 and was granted temporary status with effect from 1 September 1993 under the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993.

His candidature in the SSC Special Qualifying Examination, 1993 was cancelled on allegations that he had allowed another person to impersonate him in the typewriting test held on 26 December 1993.

Earlier termination orders were challenged by the applicant, and in O.A. No. 525/2010 the Tribunal set aside the termination on 11 December 2015 for violation of the protection under Article 311 and absence of a regular inquiry, while granting liberty to the respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law.

Pursuant thereto, the respondents issued a charge memorandum under Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 on 31 January 2019. That proceeding was subsequently superseded and converted into a fact-finding inquiry by memorandum dated 12 July 2019.

The inquiry officer relied principally on contradictions in the applicant’s written replies and the SSC’s conclusion, and found the charge proved.

On that basis, the respondents terminated/disengaged the applicant’s service by order dated 26 February 2021, leading to the present application.

1. Whether the respondents could replace the Rule 14 disciplinary inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 with a fact-finding inquiry against the applicant, who had been granted temporary status as a casual labourer.

2. Whether the fact-finding inquiry satisfied the principles of natural justice and the essential requirements of a regular inquiry before the applicant’s service could be terminated.

3. Whether, in view of the lapse of approximately 33 years since the alleged examination misconduct and the applicant’s proximity to the age of retirement, the matter should be remanded for a fresh inquiry.

The Tribunal applied the Casual Labourers (Grant of Temporary Status and Regularization) Scheme, 1993, under which temporary status does not convert a casual labourer into a regular government servant or confer appointment against a sanctioned post.

Consequently, the Tribunal held that a temporary-status casual labourer does not hold a civil post and is not governed by the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965; therefore, replacing the Rule 14 proceeding with a fact-finding inquiry was not impermissible.

However, the termination procedure was still required to conform to the principles of natural justice and the essential features of a regular inquiry, consistently with the Tribunal’s earlier decision in O.A. No. 525/2010 dated 11 December 2015.

The Tribunal also referred to Nar Singh Pal v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 401, and Chairman, Board of Mining Examination v. Ramjee, (1997) 2 SCC 256, in the context of Article 311, natural justice, and the procedural safeguards applicable to termination.

Although the respondents were entitled to conduct a fact-finding inquiry rather than a Rule 14 disciplinary inquiry, that inquiry had to independently and fairly establish the alleged impersonation.

The Tribunal found that the inquiry report relied almost entirely on inconsistencies in the applicant’s questionnaire responses and his earlier reply to the SSC.

No SSC inquiry report, statement of the officials who conducted or witnessed the typewriting test, or other direct evidence of impersonation was produced.

The inquiry officer merely presumed that the SSC had acted with due diligence, despite the SSC’s own letter indicating that its decision was based on the applicant’s explanation and not on an independent inquiry into the alleged misconduct.

Thus, the respondents effectively adopted the SSC’s conclusion without conducting an inquiry satisfying natural justice and the essential safeguards identified in the earlier Tribunal order.

Although the allegation was serious, the Tribunal declined remand because the alleged misconduct was 33 years old and the applicant was nearing the retirement age of 60 years.

The termination order dated 26 February 2021 was therefore quashed and set aside.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant with consequential benefits, excluding back wages, within three months from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The Original Application and associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, with the parties directed to bear their own costs.