NARSING DAN vs M/o Home Affairs on 3 November 2026

O R D E R

Per Rameshwar Vyas

The applicant, being aggrieved by order of termination of his services vide Office Order dated 18.09.2015 (Annex.A/2), has preferred the present O.A. challenging the aforesaid order and the memorandum dated 18.09.2015 (Annex.A/1) whereby his name was struck off from the pay rolls.

2. The facts of the case in brief are as under :

2- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]

The applicant was appointed on a temporary post of Security Assistant/Guard in Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau vide Memorandum dated 12.10.2012 (Annex.A/3) subject to terms and conditions mentioned in para 2 thereof. As per para 2 (ii) of the memo, the appointment may be terminated at any time by a notice of one month given by either side, viz. the appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reason. The appointing authority, however, reserved the right of terminating the services of the appointee forthwith or before expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him/her of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice of the unexpired period. The applicant in terms of the clause (ii) of para 2 of the offer of appointment dated 12.10.2012, was served advance notice of one month vide memo dated 18.08.2015 (Annex.A/7) and was informed that his services would be terminated from the department after a period of 30 days with effect from the date of issue of this memo. Thereafter, vide order No. 1478/J/2015 dated 18.08.2015 (Annex.A/2), the services of the applicant were terminated w.e.f. 18.09.2015 in terms of clause (ii) of para 2 of the offer of appointment dated 12.10.2012. However, his absence period from duties w.e.f. 06.07.2015 to 17.09.2015, was regularized by granting him 74 days EoL (without medical certificate and without any pay benefits). The memo dated 18.09.2015 (Annex.A/1) whereby the name of the applicant was struck off from the pay roll of SIB, was issued in reference to his application dated 17.09.2015 requesting to withdraw termination notice served upon him. Being aggrieved with the above, the applicant has approached this Tribunal challenging the termination order dated 18.09.2015 (Annex.A/2) and the memo dated 18.09.2015 (Annex.A/1).

3. It is the case of the applicant that some of the persons appointed along with him on temporary basis, were appointed on permanent basis

3- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]

after working for about three years but, the applicant was not so appointed perhaps for the reason that he remained on leave for quite some time. Otherwise, he had absolutely nothing adverse against him and his work was satisfactory. The applicant has made averments to justify his absence for various periods during his service period. It is alleged that the reason and the foundation for his termination is the alleged unauthorized absence. It has been clearly settled by various courts including the Hon’ble Apex Court that when the order was not conclusive the court can go behind the order to go to the real foundation of the termination order. It is further averred that the unauthorized absence is otherwise a misconduct and tantamount to stigmatic in nature. Thus the termination order is not sustainable in law and deserves to be quashed being violative of the Articles 14, 21 and 311 of the Constitution of India. With the above grounds, the applicant has challenged his termination from service.

4. As per reply to the O.A. filed by the respondents, the applicant was appointed on the post of Security Assistant/Exe. on a temporary basis. The respondents in their reply quoted the service history of the applicant which suggests that he remained on leave without prior sanction of leave on several occasions, however, his period of absence was regularized by granting leave. The respondents in their reply enumerated so many instances of his remaining absent from the duties. The applicant on an earlier occasion, also was issued a notice dated 09.01.2015 (Annex. R/12) under the same clause 2(ii), however on the written assurance given by the applicant not to repeat the conduct in future, termination notice dated 09.01.2015 was withdrawn vide memo dated 05.02.2015 (Annex.R/14).

4- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]

Thereafter, the applicant again remained absent since 06.07.2015 therefore vide memo dated 29.07.2015 (Annex.R/15) the applicant was directed to report for duty forthwith but instead of joining, he sent a medical certificate in response to the aforesaid memo. He also sent a reply dated 03.08.2015 (Annex.R/16) wherein, he expressed inability to join duties and requested the authority not to make further correspondence otherwise he will be compelled to take a wrong step for which respondents will be liable. It is further averred in the reply that it was learnt he was preparing for competitive examinations at Jaipur. The respondents stated that the applicant out of total two years’ of his service, remained on leave for 294 days.

5. In view of the above factual matrix, the respondents rightly adjudged him unsuitable and accordingly, dispensed with his services by passing the impugned order under the CCS (Temporary Service), Rules. The respondents also quoted the following observations made in judicial pronouncement, in support of his arguments : In Purshottam Lal Dhingra Vs. UOI & Ors., reported in AIR 1958 SC 36, it has been held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that “In short, if the termination is founded on the right flown from conduct or the service rules, then prima-facie the termination is not a punishment and carried with it no evil consequences. So Article 311 is not attracted." In the case of Nepal Singh Vs. State of UP, reported in AIR 1985 SC 84, while dealing with the issue, it has been held as under :- “Under the service jurisprudence a temporary employee has no right to hold the post and his services are liable to be terminated in accordance with relevant rules and the terms & conditions of service. If on the perusal of the character roll entries or on the basis of preliminary inquiry on the allegations made against an employee, the competent authority is satisfied that the employee is not suitable for the service whereupon the services of the temporary employee are terminated, no exception can be taken to such an order of termination.”

5- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]

In the matter of Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. S.N.Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences reported in (1999) SCC (L&S) 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under : ”If even the inquiry was not held, no findings were arrived at and the employer was not inclined to conduct a inquiry but at the same time, he did not want to continue the employee against whom there were complaints, it would only be a case of motive and the order would not be bad. Similar is the position if employer did want to inquire into truth of allegations because the delay in regular departmental proceedings or he was doubtful in securing adequate evidence. In such circumstances, the allegations would be motive and not foundation and simple order of termination would be valid.” Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondents prayed to dismiss the O.A.

6. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that the impugned termination order for the alleged misconduct, is based on misconduct of remaining absent unauthorisedly. The impugned order is punitive in nature which could not have been passed without following the due procedure as provided in CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The order is violative of the provisions of Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India which provides that a Government servant cannot be dismissed or removed from service without conducting inquiry.

7. In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant has cited judgment of Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in Sheni Dan Vs. UOI & Ors., in D.B.Civil Writ Petition No. 4938/2025 decided on 07.08.2026 wherein, Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court observed that if the termination is stigmatic then inquiry is required to be conducted.

8. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that termination is founded after adjudging his suitability for service and not upon his misconduct. The respondents did not want to inquire into the reasons for his absence by holding disciplinary proceedings. On the

6- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]

other hand it regularized his services after granting him leave. Considering the performance of the applicant during three years of service, the applicant was not found to be suitable to continue in service, therefore, invoking the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary service), Rules, he was served one month’s prior notice and then services of the applicant were terminated vide order dated 18.08.2015 (Annex.A/2), keeping in view the specific terms contained in clause 2(ii) of his offer of appointment.

9. The learned counsel for the respondents has also relied upon the judicial pronouncement, as referred in the reply to the O.A. filed by the respondents.

10. Having regard to the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and material available on record, the question for adjudication before us is, whether the termination is punitive/stigmatic in nature and cannot be passed without conducting inquiry? Upon perusal of the Office Order dated 18.09.2015 (Annex.A/2) it emerges that the applicant’s services have been terminated in terms of clause (ii) of para 2 of his offer of appointment dated 12.10.2012, which authorizes an employer to terminate the services of an appointee at any time by giving a notice of one month.

11. Further, the termination order does not refer to any imputation against the applicant. It appears that the applicant proved himself unsuitable by his conduct to remain in service with the respondent organization. It is true that the reason for finding the applicant unsuitable in service may be the fact of his frequent and long absence during his short three years service but that itself does not mean that the respondents treated it as misconduct and terminated his services. On the other hand, the respondents provided ample opportunities to the applicant to improve

7- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]

himself to the satisfaction of the respondents. The record reveals that on an earlier occasion also, the applicant was given one month’s notice under the same provision but on written assurance given by the applicant the notice was withdrawn. When the applicant did not improve his performance the respondents were competent to exercise the powers conferred upon them under the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, which permits termination by written notice. The motive behind termination seems not to punish the applicant but it was the administrative exigency to get rid of the employees who are not interested to serve the department despite granting ample opportunities to improve his sincerity. Since the termination is not a punishment the provisions of Article 311 are not attracted. The competent authority terminated the applicant's services after finding him not suitable for the service. The employer cannot be compelled to hold an inquiry if they are satisfied that the applicant would not be fit to remain in service.

12. It is also pertinent to note here that the applicant himself averred in the O.A. that the persons who were appointed along with him, were made permanent but the applicant was not made permanent for the reason that he remained on leave. In our view, the fact of remaining on leave for most of the time in his short service career, is just and reasonable ground to adjudge the applicant unsuitable for his further continuance. In such cases Rule 5 (ii) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, authorizes an Employer to terminate services of such person(s) without holding inquiry. Resultantly, we find no merit in this O.A., hence, the O.A. is dismissed with no order as to costs.

(Hukum Singh Meena) (Rameshwar Vyas) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial)

Jrm.

8- [O.A. 99 OF 2016]