DATTARAYA KALURAM DEDGE Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 19th March, 1999 in Original application No. 174 of 1990. The Central Administrative Tribunal has dismissed the original application filed by the petitioner.

(2.) The facts giving rise to the present petition are as follows: the petitioner was employed as a Casual Labourer in the National Defence academy at Pune. The petitioner and several other Casual Labourers filed original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal for regularisation of their services. This original application was allowed and the Tribunal directed the petitioner and other Casual Labourers to be regularised in employment. Accordingly, the petitioner on 17th July, 1998 was given an offer of appointment as Groundsman with effect from the same date. The appointment was temporary and terminable on giving one month's notice by either side. The petitioner was put on probation for a period of two years. While accepting the appointment, the petitioner was expected to fill in the attestation form giving various particulars. One of the particulars required from the petitioner was whether he was involved in any criminal case. It appears that the form was filled in by a friend of the petitioner and it was stated that no criminal case was pending against the petitioner. On police verification report being called by the respondents, it was found that there was a criminal case pending against the petitioner. On 22nd February, 1999, a notice was issued to the petitioner terminating his services after one month from the date of the notice in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by this notice, the petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal by filling Original Application No. 174 of 1999. The original application was opposed by the respondents by filling written statement. The respondents pleaded in the written statement that the termination order was issued on account of the petitioner having suppressed the fact of his being involved in a criminal case while filling in the attestation form. It was further pleaded that since action is taken under Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary service) Rules, 1965, there was no need to issue any show cause notice or holding an enquiry. The Central Administrative Tribunal accepted the submission of the respondents and dismissed the original application.

(3.) Mr. Marne appearing for the petitioner submits that although on the face of it the termination order dated 22nd February, 1999 may appear innocuous, the written statement of the respondents filed before the Central administrative Tribunal indicates that the reason for terminating the services of the petitioner was on account of suppression of facts while filling in the attestation form. He submits that be lifting the veil one could ascertain that the action against the petitioner was punitive in nature which had been taken under the guise of simple termination. He submits in such situation it was incumbent on the respondents to issue a show cause notice and hold an enquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice before effecting termination of service. He relies on the judgments in the case of (V. P, Ahuja v. State of Punjab and others) , 2001 (1) S. C. SERVICES LAW JUDGMENTS 272 and (A. P. State Federation of Co-op. Spinning Mitts Ltd. and another v. P. V. Swaminathan) , 2001 (10) S. C. C. 83.