Termination of Co-terminus Employee Founded on Alleged Criminal Antecedents Held Stigmatic and Punitive Without Regular Inquiry

The applicant was appointed as Private Secretary (PS) to the Chief Minister (CM) of Delhi on a co-terminus basis in 2015 and re-appointed in February 2020

During both appointments, he disclosed the pendency of FIR No. 102/07 (Sections 353, 504, 506 IPC) in his Attestation Form

On 10.11.2023, the Special Secretary (Vigilance) issued a Show Cause Notice (SCN) alleging his appointment was void ab initio due to criminal antecedents and violation of DoPT OMs regarding character verification

On 10.04.2024, an order was issued terminating his services under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, citing gravity of charges and lack of vigilance clearance

The applicant challenged the termination as being issued by an incompetent authority, being punitive/stigmatic without a formal inquiry, and disregarding his prior disclosure

1. Whether the applicant suppressed information regarding the pending FIR at the time of appointment

2. Whether the SCN preceding the termination was issued with the approval of the Competent Authority (the Lt. Governor)

3. Whether the pending FIR constituted a valid ground for termination when it was disclosed prior to appointment

4. Whether the termination order was stigmatic/punitive in nature, requiring a departmental inquiry under Article 311(2)

The Tribunal applied Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which allows termination of temporary employees but cannot be used for punitive dismissal without inquiry

It relied on Union of India v. B.V. Gopinath, establishing that the specific contents of a charge sheet/SCN must be personally approved by the Disciplinary Authority

It further applied principles from Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satendra Nath Bose National Centre, Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI, and Nina Lath Gupta v. Union of India, which distinguish between "motive" and "foundation," holding that if a termination is founded on specific allegations of misconduct or casts a slur on character, it is "stigmatic" and requires a full-fledged inquiry

DoPT OMs dated 02.07.1982 and 28.01.2013 were examined regarding the eligibility of persons with criminal cases for government service

The Tribunal found that the applicant had never suppressed the FIR; rather, the authorities appointed him twice despite full knowledge of the pending trial

Regarding the SCN, the Tribunal perused the file notings and concluded that while the Lt. Governor (LG) had directed the department to "seek status," he had not specifically approved the SCN's contents or the decision to terminate, making the notice a nullity under the B.V. Gopinath ratio

Analytically, the Tribunal determined the termination was not "simpliciter" but "punitive." It noted that the order explicitly characterized the applicant’s charges as "grave," stated he was "not clear from a vigilance angle," and claimed his presence was "fraught with dangers"

These assertions were held to be "foundation" rather than "motive," casting a permanent stigma and violating principles of natural justice since no formal inquiry or cross-examination of witnesses was conducted

It quashed the SCN dated 10.11.2023 and the termination orders dated 10.04.2024 and 11.04.2024. The Tribunal ordered the applicant's restoration to his position, but limited this relief to the period ending 01.09.2024, in adherence to the Supreme Court's bail conditions in Bibhav Kumar v. State of NCT of Delhi which barred him from his PS role during the trial. Consequently, the applicant was awarded 50% of consequential benefits for the period up to 01.09.2024 only.