Termination of a temporary government servant under Rule 5(1) requires only proper one-month notice, not a disciplinary inquiry.

The petitioner was enlisted as a temporary Constable (GD) in the CRPF on 30 June 2003.

During treatment at CRPF Hospital, Bhopal, and Hamidia Hospital, Bhopal, he was diagnosed with a longstanding mental disorder and was subsequently referred to Base Hospital-II, CRPF, Hyderabad.

The medical opinion recorded that the disorder pre-dated his enlistment and that he was unfit for active combat duties.

The respondents served him with one month’s notice under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, on 10 February 2004.

Before expiry of the notice period, he deserted the camp on 11 March 2004, leading to registration of an FIR on 12 March 2004; his services were terminated with effect from 13 March 2004.

His departmental appeal was dismissed on 2 December 2004.

He challenged the termination and appellate order, seeking reinstatement from 25 March 2004 with consequential benefits.

The Court applied Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, under which the services of a temporary Government servant may be terminated at any time by written notice from the appointing authority, ordinarily requiring one month’s notice; alternatively, termination may be effected forthwith upon payment of salary and allowances for the notice period.

The Rule also prescribes the manner of service of notice, including personal delivery or registered post, with publication in the Official Gazette where the notice is returned unserved.

The Court held that a temporary Government servant’s service may be terminated in accordance with this provision without invoking the ordinary disciplinary inquiry procedure, provided the statutory notice requirements are satisfied.

The Court rejected the petitioner’s challenge because his status as a temporary employee was undisputed.

Applying Rule 5(1), it held that the respondents were entitled to terminate his service by written notice and that the notice period was one month.

The petitioner was served with the requisite notice on 10 February 2004, and he did not controvert that fact by filing a rejoinder.

The termination took effect on 13 March 2004, after the notice period had elapsed.

The Court further accepted that the decision was taken in view of the medical opinion that the petitioner was unfit for active combat duties and that the disciplinary and appellate authorities had acted in accordance with Rule 5(1).

Consequently, the Court found no legally sustainable basis to require a disciplinary inquiry or to interfere merely because the petitioner suffered from a mental disorder.

It found no ground to interfere with the orders of the disciplinary and appellate authorities.

The writ petition was accordingly dismissed, and no reinstatement or consequential benefits were granted.