PRADIP KUMAR DAS Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is directed against the order dated 09.12.2010 passed in O.A. No.3544/2009 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that his said original application, which had been filed challenging the termination of probation order dated 20.11.2009, was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present writ petition are as under:

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of discharge, which virtually amounted to termination, was bad in law. First of all, he submitted that it smacked of arbitrariness and was the product of malice in law. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the discharge order was punitive in nature inasmuch as it was stigmatic and, therefore, it was essential that an enquiry under Article 311 of the Constitution ought to have been undertaken. Thirdly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the relevant rules and, in this case, Rule 9(2) of the said Rules, required the giving of one month's notice prior to termination. That notice was admittedly not given and, therefore, the termination was bad. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that by virtue of operation of Rule 8 of the said Rules, the petitioner could be deemed to have been confirmed.