JAI BHAGWAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dated 06.08.2013 in O.A. No. 3246/2011. He had unsuccessfully challenged the order of termination issued by the respondents on 23.06.2010 by which his services were dispensed with in terms of R.5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereafter called the "Rules"). The petitioner was appointed to the Junior Intelligence Officer Grade -II on 12.01.2009. The termination order reads as follows:

(2.) THE petitioner sought for reinstatement; his representation was rejected on 03.08.2010. His subsequent representations too were rejected. Consequently, he approached the CAT with the grievance that the termination order really amounted to one based upon misconduct and, therefore, the respondents acted contrary to the rules in as much as they did not hold an enquiry. The CAT, after issuing notice, considered the effect of the order and directed the respondents to produce the official file. In this regard, the CAT recorded as follows:

(3.) THIS Court has considered the submissions and the circumstances of the case. The CAT - - as is clear from the above extracts - noted that the department took note of the departmental file which contains several reports regarding the unsatisfactory behaviour of the petitioner, which appear to have been indicated from time to time. Apart from the incident of 11.05.2010, the CAT also noted that on 13.10.2009, the petitioner appeared to have consumed excess liquor due to which he was hospitalized on 14.10.2009, causing interruption in the office and again he consumed liquor heavily on 03.11.2009 and was not in a frame of mind to attend duties. Indeed, he did not attend duties on the next day. Having regard to these, and the undisputed fact that on 11.05.2010, the petitioner was rusticated from the course which he was supposed to attend, this Court is of the opinion that no fault can be found with the CAT's conclusions. There indeed appears to have sufficient material for the executive government to conclude that it was not in public interest to continue with the petitioner's service. As far as the other allegations are concerned, the Court is of the opinion that these should have been substantiated by the petitioner, but were not so proved. There is also no question of any prior enquiry into alleged misconduct, which the respondents were bound in law to undertake, as is alleged. For these reasons, the Court is of the opinion that no interference with the CAT's order is called for. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.