ARVIND KUMAR GUPTA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition was filed challenging the order dated 13.8.1996 at annexure No. 5 to the writ petition whereby the service of the petitioner was terminated. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that in view of the nature of appointment of the petitioner as it appears from annexure No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition the petitioner's a service was against a permanent post and on probationary basis. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the initial period of two years of probation was over on 25.7.1996 and as no extension was made of such probation the petitioner was entitled to be treated as confirmed automatically. Next contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the powers purported to have been exercised under the proviso to sub -rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1965) are not available in respect of the petitioner's service as appointment of the petitioner was under the Cantonment Board and the law as contained in the Cantonment Fund Servants Rules, 1937 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 1937) is applicable. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there were several show cause notices issued to the petitioner before passing the impugned order and the same is actually punishment under the garb of termination of service under Rule 5(1) of the aforesaid Rules of 1965.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the respondent stated that the appointment of the petitioner is temporary as he was appointed on probation initially for two years and thereafter such probation was extended by order dated 2.8.1986 for a period of three months as appears from annexure No. 1 to the counter affidavit. Next contention for the learned counsel for the respondents in that as petitioner's service was never confirmed remained a temporary servant and as such the aforesaid rules of 1965 were very much applicable. Therefore, the order of termination exercising such power under such rule is valid and proper. Learned counsel for the respondents further states that though show cause notices were issued to the petitioner but the present termination order under Rule 5(1) of the said Rules of 1965 in the facts of the case is absolutely permissible.

(3.) WITH regard to the applicability of the Rules, the learned counsel for both the parties admitted that the petitioner's service is governed by the Rules of 1937 but the dispute is there as regards applicability of the Rules of 1965 in the case of the petitioner. For the purpose of the same various provisions of law have been referred to.