V. SUBRAMANIAN Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Writ Petitioner is the original applicant before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench and he filed O.A.No.754 of 2001, challenging the order of the first respondent dated 23.03.2001, in and by which, he was terminated from his service as a Watchman (Temporary) by invoking proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The said application after contest came to be dismissed vide impugned order dated 11.02.2002. The petitioner challenging the legality of the said order has filed the present Writ Petition on 27.04.2011 and it was admitted on 29.04.2011.

(2.) Mr. F. Deepak, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the typed set of documents filed in support of the writ petition and would submit that though the impugned orders says that it is an order of termination simplicitor, but it is not so for the reason that on the alleged ground of negligence of duty a show cause notice was issued by the second respondent on 07.02.2001, which was also followed by another show cause notice dated 14.02.2001 and yet another show cause notice dated 22.02.2001 and it was followed by the impugned order of termination dated 23.03.2001 and since the reason for fishing the order of termination is negligence of duty on probation as a temporary night watchman, it should be taken as stigmatic. In that event, the first respondent ought to have issued show cause notice, calling for his explanation and if not satisfied should have proceeded with departmentally and in order to cut over the same the first respondent has issued the illegal order of termination simplicitor and the Central Administrative Tribunal without properly considering the factual and legal position has dismissed his Original Application. Challenging the said order, the petitioner prays for interference.

(3.) Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 would submit that the writ petitioner was appointed as temporary watchman with effect from 01.09.1999 and he came to be terminated vide impugned order dated 23.03.2001, which is nothing but an order of termination simplicitor. It is further submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2 that the petitioner was unauthorisedly absented from duty for a long period and taking into account a decision has been taken to invoke the aforesaid provision and accordingly an order of termination simplicitor came to be passed and it was put to challenge by filing Original Application in O.S.No.754 of 2001 on the file of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras Bench, which came to be dismissed on 11.02.2002 and after nearly 9 years the writ petitioner has chosen to file the present writ petition on 27.04.2011, challenging the legality of the order and the same is unsustainable. Lastly, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 2 would also contend that since the order is termination simplicitor there is no necessity to issue show cause notice and initiate departmental proceedings and that apart he is guilty of laches as after a delay of 9 years he filed the Writ Petition and hence, prays for dismissal of the Writ Petition.