BHANWAR LAL Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner who was enrolled as a Vehicle Mechanic with the respondents, the Border Roads Organisation, for a period of two years on probation up to 7th June, 2013 has challenged the order dated 10th December, 2011 passed by the respondents terminating his service under the Provision of Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. While terminating the service of the petitioner, it was also held that he would be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus the allowances for the period of notice, at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.

(2.) THE brief facts to comprehend the disputes are that the petitioner was enrolled on 8th June, 2011 and was granted the service No.GS-196381W, while being initially put on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 8th June, 2011 up to 7th June, 2013. According to him, at that time an inquiry was conducted into the alleged irregularities/malpractices committed during the recruitment by the Boards/Centers and GREF Centers. Reliance has also been placed by the petitioner on the communication dated 17th October, 2011 issued by the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, respondent No.1, to the Director General, Border Roads, respondent No.2, disclosing that pursuant to the inquiries held in respect of the recruitment of MT Drivers/Electricians/Vehicle Mechanics in BRO, it was noticed that the recruitment had not been conducted in a transparent manner and thus, the entire selection process was to be vitiated. THE petitioner had also referred to another letter dated 18th November, 2011 by the Secretary Ministry of Road Transport and Highway issued to the Director General, Border Road, directing him to proceed in accordance with Rules 5 (1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 pursuant to which, the Director General had issued a letter dated 22nd November, 2011 to the respective units for the termination of the services of the recruits enrolled pursuant to the advertisement issued in the month of June, 2010.

(3.) ACCORDING to learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondents should have conducted an inquiry in order to ascertain as to what was the foundation for terminating the service, and that termination could not be imposed by way of a punishment. Thus it is urged that the termination of the petitioners service is not a discharge simplicitor. ACCORDING to the petitioner, since the termination of the petitioner was based on the inquiry conducted by the respondents, however, since the petitioner was not involved in the inquiry, therefore, the termination is in violation of the various decisions of the Courts, as it causes a stigma on the petitioner and is also punitive in nature and thus the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.