Termination under CCS (Temporary Service) Rules must be an order simpliciter and not founded on stigmatic findings.

The applicants participated in the Combined Higher Secondary Level (CHSL) Examination, 2020.

Their results were initially withheld but later released following a Tribunal order dated 22.04.2024, which directed the respondents to issue provisional offers of appointment subject to the outcome of any pending enquiries

The applicants were appointed to the AFHQ Clerical Service in August 2024 and placed on a two-year probation

Subsequently, the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) conducted an internal investigation, without the applicants' participation, and found their candidature "highly doubtful," leading to a request for FIR registration

Based on these findings, the respondents issued a show-cause notice and later terminated the applicants' services on 13.08.2025 by invoking Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965

The applicants challenged these actions as being stigmatic and violative of natural justice

1. Whether the termination of the applicants’ services under Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, founded upon adverse findings of an internal enquiry conducted behind their backs, was stigmatic and legally unsustainable

2. Whether the liberty granted by the Tribunal in previous litigation to conduct an "enquiry" permitted an internal investigation devoid of an opportunity for the affected parties to defend themselves

Rule 5(1)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, which allows for the termination of a temporary government servant via notice

Precedent set by the Delhi High Court in Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Ors. v. Virender, which held that while a temporary employee can be discharged, any termination under Rule 5 must be an order simpliciter; if the order is founded on allegations of misconduct or adverse findings (stigmatic), it cannot be sustained without following the principles of natural justice

Reference to Amar Jeet Singh v. DTC, affirming that even contractual or temporary employees are protected against stigmatic termination without due process

The Tribunal observed that the impugned show-cause notice and termination orders were explicitly founded on the findings of an internal committee that labeled the applicants' candidature "highly doubtful"

The court reasoned that because the termination was a direct consequence of these adverse findings rather than a performance-based or administrative necessity, the order was punitive and stigmatic in nature

The Tribunal rejected the respondents' contention that they were merely following the liberty granted in a previous order, clarifying that a legally valid "enquiry" necessitates the participation of the affected party to satisfy the principles of natural justice

Since the investigation was conducted entirely behind the applicants' backs and the resulting termination order was not simpliciter, it was held to be a misuse of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules

The respondents were directed to reinstate the applicants with all consequential benefits, including continuity of service and arrears of pay, within four weeks

The court granted the respondents liberty to initiate fresh proceedings regarding any alleged misconduct, provided they strictly adhere to the relevant rules and instructions on the subject