VISHAL KUNDARA vs UNION OF INDIA on 29 September 2026

ORDER

PER R.S. DOGRA, MEMBER (J):

The instant OA has been filed by the applicant praying for the following relief(s):- “8.1 Admit the present Original Application and call for the records from the Respondents; 8.2 Issue notice to the Respondents directing them to show cause as to why the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2026, served upon the Applicant on 11.04.2026 (Saturday), should not be quashed and set aside; 8.3 Quash and set aside the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2026 as being illegal, arbitrary, stigmatic and in violation of principles of natural justice; 8.4 Direct reinstatement of the Applicant in service; 8.5 Direct grant of continuity of service for all purposes; 8.6 Direct payment of full back wages from the date of termination till the date of reinstatement, along with all consequential benefits including pay, allowances and service benefits; 8.7 Direct payment of one month’s salary and allowances in lieu of notice, if the same has not been paid; 8.8 Declare that the action of the Respondents in treating the Applicant as continuing on probation, in the absence of any formal extension order communicated to him, is arbitrary and unsustainable in law. 8.9 Pass any other order or direction as this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

-AND- for this act of kindness, the applicant as in duty bound shall ever pray.”

SOURABH KUMAR

2. The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section-19 of the Administrative Tribunals’ Act, 1985, assailing the legality, validity and propriety of the impugned termination order dated 30.03.2026 issued by the Respondent authorities, which was served upon the Applicant on 11.04.2026, being a Saturday and a non-working day for the Office of the Respondents. The applicant was appointed as Junior Intelligence Officer under the Narcotics Control Bureau and joined his duties on 16.10.2023. The Applicant continued to discharge his duties in the ordinary course and remained in uninterrupted service till 10.04.2026, beyond the prescribed period of probation, without any formal order extending the probation period being communicated to him. It is the specific case of the Applicant that after the completion of the probation period on 15.10.2025, the Applicant was neither informed of any extension nor was any adverse order passed within the probation period. On the contrary, the Applicant continued to be assigned duties and functioned as a regular employee till 10.04.2026, thereby giving rise to a legitimate expectation that he stood confirmed in service. Subsequently, certain Show Cause Notices and Memoranda were issued to the Applicant,

SOURABH KUMAR

including a Show Cause Notice dated 13.10.2025 and another dated 17.10.2025, which, as per the Applicant, were served belatedly, by suppressing material facts and appear to have been antedated. The Applicant submitted detailed replies, including replies dated 29.10.2025, 07.04.2026 and 10.04.2026, addressing each and every allegations levelled against him with supporting material and explanation. However, without considering the said replies and without conducting any departmental inquiry or affording an opportunity of hearing in accordance with law, the Respondent Authorities proceeded to pass the impugned Termination Order dated 30.03.2026, which was served upon the Applicant only on 11.04.2026. The impugned termination order, though couched in innocuous terms, is in fact founded upon allegations of misconduct, including serious imputations affecting the integrity and conduct of the Applicant, thereby rendering the order stigmatic and punitive in nature. In such circumstances, it is well settled in law that even in the case of a probationer, termination founded on allegations of misconduct cannot be effected without conducting a proper inquiry in accordance with principles of natural justice. It is further contended that the impugned order,

SOURABH KUMAR

as well as the show cause notices dated 13.10.2025 and 17.10.2025, suffer from antedating, suppression of material facts, and colourable exercise of power, inasmuch as the replies submitted by the Applicant till 10.04.2026, immediately prior to the issuance of the termination order, have not been considered at all, and the said termination order, though dated 30.03.2026, was served upon the Applicant only on 11.04.2026, which fell on a Saturday, a non-working day for the office of the Respondents. The Applicant also submits that the mandatory requirement of payment of one month’s salary in lieu of notice has not been complied with, rendering the termination order further illegal and unsustainable. The action of the Respondents is thus arbitrary, violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India, and in gross violation of the principles of natural justice. The impugned termination has caused serious prejudice to the Applicant, affecting his livelihood, reputation and future career prospects. In view of the said facts and circumstances, the Applicant has no efficacious alternative remedy and is constrained to approach this Tribunal seeking quashing of the impugned termination order and consequential reliefs.

SOURABH KUMAR

3. Learned counsel for the respondents has reiterated the averments made in Written Statement and submitted that Termination Order dated 30.03.2026 has been issued strictly in accordance with the applicable rules governing temporary service/probation and after due consideration of the Applicant's overall suitability for retention in service. At the outset, it is submitted that the Applicant was appointed to the post on probation and had not acquired any vested or indefeasible right to confirmation merely upon expiry of the prescribed period of probation. In the present case, no formal order confirming the Applicant in service was ever issued. Rather, the reporting/reviewing authority had recommended extension of the probation period owing to the Applicant's unsatisfactory performance/conduct and pending assessment of suitability. Accordingly, the Applicant continued to remain in probation/temporary service, and the provisions of the applicable Temporary Service Rules, including Rule 5, were validly invoked. The impugned order is a simpliciter termination of service of a probationer/temporary employee based upon an assessment of overall suitability and does not cast any stigma, nor does it contain any imputation of misconduct warranting

SOURABH KUMAR

disciplinary proceedings. The law is well settled that a probationer has no right to hold the post permanently and the employer is fully competent to assess his suitability during probation and discontinue services if found unsuitable. The order dated 30.03.2026 neither records findings of misconduct nor visits the Applicant with any civil consequences of a penal character. Since the termination is not punitive but simpliciter in nature under the applicable service rules, no departmental enquiry or opportunity of hearing is required in law before discontinuation of service of a probationer found unsuitable. The Applicant's attempt to challenge the validity of service of the order on the ground that 11.04.2026 fell on a Saturday/non- working day is wholly irrelevant and legally untenable. NCB is a law enforcement agency and field units work round the clock to meet operation exigencies. There is no bar on service of order on Saturday. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.03.2026 is lawful, valid and passed strictly in accordance with the applicable rules. The allegations of illegality, arbitrariness, stigmatic nature, punitive intent, and violation of natural justice are baseless, denied and liable to be rejected. The Original Application therefore deserves dismissal.

SOURABH KUMAR

4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the impugned order is not a termination simpliciter but is in substance, punitive and stigmatic, being founded on allegations of misconduct without holding any regular departmental inquiry. It is a settled principle of law that even in the case of a probationer, where the termination is founded on misconduct, the same cannot be sustained without compliance with the principles of natural justice and a proper inquiry. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee -Vs- Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences has clearly held that where findings relating to misconduct form the foundation of the termination, and such findings are arrived at without a regular departmental inquiry, the order is vitiated in law. The said position has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. -Vs- Krishan Kant Gupta, wherein termination of a probationer based on allegations of misconduct without holding a departmental inquiry was held to be stigmatic and punitive and was accordingly set aside. In the present case, the impugned termination order is clearly founded on allegations of misconduct, indiscipline, and disobedience, and therefore

SOURABH KUMAR

cannot be sustained in the absence of a regular departmental inquiry. Therefore, the impugned action is violative of principles of natural justice inasmuch as no regular departmental inquiry was held, no charge-sheet was served, no evidence was tested in the presence of the Applicant, and documents allegedly relied upon were not furnished to the Applicant. For that the impugned order is stigmatic in nature as it contains imputations and conclusions affecting the Applicant’s reputation, character, and future service prospects. Counsel further states that the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held that stigma may arise not only from the final order itself but also from the findings and materials referred to therein. This principle has been authoritatively laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee(Supra). Further the Government of India’s own instructions under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 mandates that an order of termination of a temporary employee should not disclose reasons or allegations. The impugned order, however, contains detailed imputations of misconduct and findings against the Applicant, thereby clearly demonstrating that the same is not a simpliciter discharge but a punitive and

SOURABH KUMAR

stigmatic order passed without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, and is therefore liable to be quashed. Furthermore, continuation of the Applicant in service beyond the prescribed probation period till 10.04.2026 without any formal extension order creates a legitimate expectation in favour of the Applicant, and the subsequent action of treating him as a probationer is arbitrary, contrary to settled service jurisprudence, and liable to be set aside.

5. Heard the parties and perused the materials on records.

6. It is an admitted position that the Applicant was a probationer/temporary Government servant whose conduct, performance and overall suitability for retention in Government services remained under continuous assessment. It is further noted that the Applicant was afforded adequate opportunity to explain his conduct through various memoranda/show cause notices issued from time to time, and his replies were duly considered by the competent authority before arriving at the conclusion that he was unsuitable for continued retention in Government service. The impugned termination order is a

SOURABH KUMAR

simpliciter termination under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and does not appear to be punitive or stigmatic in nature as no formal disciplinary proceedings, including issuance of charge-sheet, examination of witnesses or cross-examination, were legally required. It is also noted that the competent authority considered various incidents and reports only as background material for evaluating the Applicant's suitability and fitness for confirmation in service which he fails to do so. The Applicant's suitability remained under continuous assessment and, upon cumulative evaluation, he was found unsuitable for continued retention in Government service.

7. The reliance placed by the learned Applicant on the judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. v. Krishan Kant Gupta is misplaced and distinguishable on facts. In the present case, the impugned order is not founded upon any finding of misconduct or intended to impose punishment, but is a simpliciter termination of a probationer based upon cumulative assessment of the Applicant's conduct, discipline,

SOURABH KUMAR

performance and overall suitability for confirmation in Government service. The impugned order does not cast any stigma nor record any adverse finding of misconduct. Hence, the ratio of the aforesaid judgment is not attracted to the present case.

8. It is pertinent to note that mere continuation in service after expiry of the initial probation period does not automatically confer permanent status or deemed confirmation upon a probationer, particularly when no formal order of confirmation has been issued by the competent authority. In the present case, no order confirming the Applicant in service was ever issued and, therefore, the Applicant continued to remain on probation and subject to assessment of his suitability for retention in Government service. The competent authority had not found the Applicant fit for confirmation and his case was under active consideration in view of persistent concerns regarding his conduct, discipline and performance. Significantly, when the applicant was posted in Chennai, the Additional Director, Chennai had reported repeated instances of misconduct and indiscipline and had specifically observed that despite repeated

SOURABH KUMAR

warnings, the Applicant had failed to mend his ways. Consequently, the Applicant was transferred from Chennai to Guwahati with the expectation that a change in posting and work environment may help improve his conduct and performance. However, the Applicant failed to show improvement and continued indulging in activities unbecoming of a Government servant. Even after transfer to Guwahati Zonal Unit and subsequent attachment to Field Office, Dimapur, the Applicant refused to acknowledge and comply with the official order on untenable grounds, left station without prior permission of the competent authority and subsequently proceeded on medical leave. Such conduct further reflected adversely on his discipline, reliability and suitability for continued retention in service. Further, the Additional Director, Chennai, in the assessment performance of the applicant, had graded him "Poor" in crucial attributes such as maintenance of discipline, punctuality and team spirit, while his quality of output was assessed as merely "Average", thereby substantiating the Respondents' assessment regarding unsatisfactory performance. It is further submitted that the Zonal Director/competent authority had recommended

SOURABH KUMAR

extension of the Applicant's probation period owing to his unsatisfactory performance and conduct.

9. Merely because a formal communication regarding extension of probation was not separately issued or served upon the Applicant does not ipso facto confer the status of a confirmed employee or extinguish the Respondents' authority to assess suitability during probation. In absence of any express order of confirmation, the Applicant remained a probationer and continued to be governed by the terms and conditions of appointment as well as the applicable rules, including Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is further submitted that in relation to the allegation of rash and negligent driving under the influence of alcohol, the Applicant himself admitted to consumption of alcohol prior to driving, which raised serious concerns regarding conduct unbecoming of a Government servant. Similarly, in respect of other allegations pertaining to inappropriate conduct and procedural impropriety, the Applicant failed to furnish any convincing explanation or corroborative material sufficient to dispel the concerns raised by the supervisory authorities. The competent

SOURABH KUMAR

authority, after evaluating the explanation vis-à-vis the material on record, found the same unsatisfactory. Since the Applicant's suitability for confirmation remained under continuous evaluation and no formal order of confirmation was ever issued, the Applicant continued to remain on probation and liable to be discharged under the applicable rules, including Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. It is noted that the Show Cause Notice dated 17.10.2025 was issued in view of the Applicant's conduct after his transfer to Guwahati Zonal Unit and attachment to the Field Office, Dimapur vide Office Order dated 04.09.2025. The Applicant had refused to acknowledge and accept the official attachment order on untenable grounds of alleged financial constraints, left station without obtaining prior permission of the competent authority and thereafter submitted medical leave applications. Such conduct constituted deliberate non-compliance with official directions and reflected adversely upon his discipline and suitability as a probationer Government servant. The incident was duly reported by the Additional Director, Guwahati vide communication dated 27.10.2025 to the DDG (NER), who recommended initiation of appropriate action against the Applicant. It is further submitted

SOURABH KUMAR

that though the Applicant claims to have submitted a reply dated 29.10.2025 to the said Show Cause Notice, the explanation furnished therein did not satisfactorily justify his conduct nor dispel the concerns raised by the supervisory authorities. The competent authority, after considering the material on record including the Applicant's explanation, found his conduct unsatisfactory and unbecoming of a Government servant. The said incident was not viewed in isolation but formed part of the overall assessment of the Applicant's conduct, discipline, performance and suitability for confirmation in Government service during probation. Even, mere submission of medical documents did not automatically regularize his absence, excuse non-compliance with official orders, or validate his leaving station without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned Termination Order dated 30.03.2026(Annexure-A/1) was issued after due assessment of the Applicant's performance, conduct and overall suitability for Government service and is legal, valid and in accordance with the applicable rules.

SOURABH KUMAR

10. For the foregoing reasons and discussions, the instant OA stands dismissed being devoid of merit. Pending M.A.(s), if any, stand disposed of.

11. Interim order, if any, stands vacated.

(MALLIKA ARYA) (RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA) MEMBER (A)

MEMBER (J) /SK/

SOURABH KUMAR