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.-11 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 a continued service with all consequential benefits. Hence, this appeal is filed challenging the correctness and validity of the order of the Tribunal.

(3.) The learned Senior Counsel for the appellants contended that the appointment of the respondent No. 1, as is evident from the Memorandum dated 10-5-1998, was temporary; the appointment could be terminated at any time by a months notice by either side and the services of the respondent No. 1 could be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Rules. He submitted that the said order of termination was a termination simpliciter; it was not stigmatic in any way; the Tribunal committed a manifest error in relying on the averments made in the counter-affidavit as to his unsatisfactory work and dereliction of his duties and these averments were made in the counter-affidavit in order to meet the grounds raised in the O.A. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the respondent No. 1 was found unsuitable on account of his taking frequent leave, sleeping when on duty and going on leave in anticipation before it was sanctioned; the order of termination was not passed based on any misconduct so as to remove him from service. He brought to our notice the decisions of this Court in support of his submissions.