N G KULKARNI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Dr. N.G. Kulkarni challenged the order of his termination by way of writ petition in the High Court. The learned Single Judge by the impugned judgment dated 27th May, 1985 dismissed the same. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal had been preferred, inter alia, on the grounds (i) that the learned single Judge failed to appreciate that the appellant was appointed on regular basis in a permanent capacity to a permanent post of Chemist (Research & Laboratory) Grade-I, in the Bank Note Press, Dewas (M.P.), whereas in the impugned judgment his case had been considered as a temporary Government servant. (ii) Adverse material was used against him, the basis of his termination was neither supplied to him nor was he afforded any opportunity to explain the same. Still the learned Single Judge relying on the adverse remarks held that termination was not punitive. (iii) On the basis of allegations levelled against him his service could not have been terminated by resorting to Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. (iv) Learned Single Judge misread and misconstrued the Memo dated 15th April, 1959 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, Government of India. (v) Learned Single Judge fell in error in not considering that the order of termination was in fact a camouflage for an order of dismissal. Adverse remarks were never communicated to him at any stage. (vi) Learned Single Judge ignored the report of Mr. H.C. Kachwai another member with Mr. P.D. Pal whom the Department entrusted the matter for enquiry.

(2.) In order to appreciate the challenge we must have quick glance to the facts of the case. Briefly stated the facts are that the respondent had offered the appellant the job of a Chemist (Research & Laboratory) Grade-I in the Bank Note Press, Dewas, M.P., vide letter dated 19th August, 1976. The incumbent was to be on probation for a period of two years extendable at the discretion of the Ministry. This offer was accepted by the appellant vide his letter dated 25th August, 1976. After he accepted the same, a letter of appointment dated 3rd September, 1976 was issued effective from 24th June, 1976. Service of the appellant was terminated under Rule 5(i) of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter Called Rules of 1965). This order of termination was assailed as pointed out above.

(3.) The first ground of attack is that since he completed successfully the period of probation of two years and the probation having not been extended, he is deemed to have been confirmed against the said post. That the order of termination was nothing but a camouflage for dismissal. The said order was passed with mala fide intention to favour respondent No. 4. the appellant was highly qualified, therefore, in the presence of appellant respondent No. 4 could not have been appointed to the post of Chief Chemist. Hence respondents 2 & 3 developed professional grudge against him. They, therefore, levelled false allegations amounting to misconduct on the part of the appellant.