UNION OF INDIA Vs. A P BAJPAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order dated 27th May, 1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. The respondent No. 1 was appointed as Assistant Central Ad Intelligence Officer -II/G/in short A.C.I.O.-II in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs as a temporary employee. His performance was found to be unsatisfactory on account of his negligence and dereliction of duties as he was found sleeping during duty hours on 24.6.1990 when he was posted at airport, New Delhi; he frequently went on leave and as such remained on leave for about six months during his tenure of about one and half years which is not disputed and he left the station and absented himself from duty in anticipation of sanction of leave from 16.4.1992 on account of his marriage and the marriage of his cousin sister. Under the circumstances, an order of termination simpliciter was passed exercising power under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (for short "the Rules").

(2.) THE respondent No. 1 made representation against the said order of termination of his services which after consideration was rejected by the competent authority. Being aggrieved, he filed O.A. No. 281 of 1993 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench. THE Tribunal, after considering the rival contentions, allowed the O.A. and set aside the order of termination of his services and declared him to be in continued service with all consequential benefits. Hence, this appeal is filed challenging the correctness and validity of the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) IT is not in dispute that the appointment of the respondent No. 1 was temporary and his services could be terminated under sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules. The order of appointment of the respondent No. 1 by its own terms was termination simpliciter. The Tribunal in the impugned order relied on the statements made by the appellants in their counter affidavit to support the order of termination of services, annexing Annexure C-3. There was no other material or circumstances before the Tribunal to take a view that the order of termination was not simpliciter and that any stigma was attached to the respondent No. 1 in terminating services. This Court in State of Uttar Pradesh and Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shukla [(1991) 1 SCC 91] dealing with the case of termination of service of a temporary employee in terms of contract as well as under the relevant rules applicable to a temporary Government servant held that the allegations made against the temporary Government servant in the counter affidavit by way of defence filed on behalf of the appellants did not change the nature and character of the order of termination.