Termination of probationer founded on misconduct requires formal inquiry, not simpliciter discharge.

The applicant, Rahul Kumar, began service with the respondents on 26.11.2009 as a 'Casual Labour' on a 'Temporary Muster Roll (TMR)' basis in the Horticulture Department, later transferred to the Accounts Branch handling clerical and computer functions.

He was conferred 'Regular Muster Roll (RMR)' status on 25.07.2014 after completing 500 days of service as of 31.01.2014.

On 03.05.2023, he was offered and accepted the post of 'Palika Sahayak (Udhyan)' with a two-year probation, governed by the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

An explanation memo dated 21.12.2023 (received 02.01.2024) was issued to the applicant, alleging manipulation of RMR attendance records for illegal gratification based on a complaint dated 26.12.2022 to the Vigilance Department.

The applicant denied these allegations in a detailed reply dated 16.01.2024, asserting the complaint was anonymous and thus impermissible under DoPT O.M. dated 28.09.2022.

Despite no regular departmental inquiry or hearing, the respondents issued a termination notice dated 14.06.2024 under Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

The applicant challenged this in O.A. No. 2679/2024, leading to a stay order on 12.07.2024.

While the stay was active, the respondents withdrew the 14.06.2024 notice on 07.08.2024, admitting its stigmatic nature, and immediately issued a fresh termination order dated 09.08.2024 under Rule 5(i) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

The applicant's contempt proceedings were closed by the Tribunal on 12.09.2024, which he challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in W.P. (C) No. 14008/2024.

The High Court, on 08.10.2024, expressed dissatisfaction with the respondents' conduct, viewing it as an attempt to overreach the Tribunal's protection.

The applicant then withdrew his earlier O.A. and filed the present O.A. challenging the 09.08.2024 termination.

Whether the termination order dated 09.08.2024, though couched as a termination simpliciter under Rule 5(i) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, is in fact punitive and stigmatic due to its foundation in allegations of misconduct, thereby violating the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India?

Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, regarding the termination of temporary government servants.

Principles of natural justice.

Anoop Jaiswal v. Government of India and Another [(1984) 2 SCC 369] establishing that termination is punitive if misconduct forms its real foundation, necessitating an inquiry under Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd. and Another v. P.V. Swaminathan [(2001) 10 SCC 83] for the principle that courts can look beyond the innocuous wording of termination orders to ascertain if alleged inefficiency or misconduct was the foundation, making it penal without proper procedure.

Nina Lath Gupta v. Union of India [2023: DHC:2944] reiterated that if termination is founded on misconduct, it is punitive and stigmatic, regardless of its facial innocence.

DoPT Office Memorandum dated 28.09.2022 prohibiting action on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints.

The Tribunal analyzed the termination of the applicant by determining if it was a 'termination simpliciter' under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, or a punitive measure based on misconduct.

The respondents argued the termination was simpliciter, as the applicant was a temporary employee on probation, the order was innocuous, and a preliminary inquiry was conducted on a specific complaint from Sh. Rajender Bhati, not an anonymous one.

They contended that the earlier stigmatizing notice was withdrawn and the contempt proceedings were closed, validating their actions.

However, the Tribunal found the termination punitive, noting that the applicant was initially issued an explanation memo containing serious allegations of misconduct and a vigilance inquiry was conducted.

The respondents themselves acknowledged the first termination notice (14.06.2024) was stigmatic by withdrawing it.

The subsequent order (09.08.2024) was issued "on the same set of facts" involving allegations of misconduct.

The Tribunal, applying the "motive" versus "foundation" distinction from Anoop Jaiswal and A.P. State Federation of Coop. Spinning Mills Ltd., concluded that the termination was "founded on allegations of misconduct" rather than mere unsuitability.

Therefore, merely changing the language of the order did not alter its true, punitive character.

The lack of a proper departmental inquiry and opportunity to defend himself, despite the punitive nature of the action, violated principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

The attempt by respondents to circumvent legal requirements by withdrawing the earlier notice and issuing a fresh one was not countenanced.

The reliance by the respondents on Pavanendra Narayan Verma and State Bank of Travancore was deemed misplaced as those cases involved terminations simpliciter not founded on specific allegations of misconduct.

The Tribunal quashed and set aside the termination order dated 09.08.2024.

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicant in service, with consequential benefits, within two months from the date of receipt of the order.

However, it was left open for the respondents to initiate appropriate disciplinary proceedings against the applicant, in accordance with law, if so advised.

The O.A. was partly allowed.