DEEPAK KUMAR BALMIK Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 25.11.2008 passed in O.A. No.191/2007 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bench at Jabalpur. By the aforesaid order, the original application of the petitioner against the order of his removal from services has been dismissed holding that the petitioner was only probationer, who could be terminated by an order of the competent authority during the period of probation, if his services were not found satisfactory.

(2.) IT is contended by learned Counsel for the petitioner that in fact the petitioner was granted compassionate appointment on account of death of his father in the services of the respondents. Such an appointment was made on 07.01.2005 and the petitioner was appointed as Labourer-B category. As per the terms and conditions of the order of appointment, the services of the petitioner were to be treated on probation for a period of two years. After the appointment, petitioner was discharging his duties efficiently. However, as the wife of the petitioner died untimely, a criminal case was registered against him and all other family members on the complaint made by the inlaws of the petitioner for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and 306 I.P.C. The petitioner and all the family members were arrested and were lodged in jail. The intimation was given by the petitioner to the jail authorities that he was serving in the employment of the respondents and, therefore, the jail authorities intimated the employer about such arrest of the petitioner. Thereafter, a sessions trial was commenced against the petitioner, his brother and mother and by judgment dated 26.07.2008 in S.T. No.316/2006, the petitioner was acquitted of all the charges by the XVI Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track), Jabalpur. However, the services of the petitioner were terminated by unreasoned order saying that his services were no longer required, by order dated 01.08.2006. Against such an order, he preferred an appeal under Rule 23 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965. However, the said appeal was returned to the petitioner saying that since the termination of services of the petitioner was on account of unsatisfactory services during period of probation, the same will not be treated as a penalty and, therefore, no appeal would lie under Rule 23 of the Rules aforesaid. The petitioner was, therefore, left with no option but to file original application before the Central Administrative Tribunal. It is contended that preliminary submission was filed by the respondents but they have not disclosed any reason for termination of services of petitioner except that the petitioner was taken in custody on account of his involvement in the aforesaid criminal case by the police and this intimation was not given by him to the competent authority of the respondents. According to the respondents, since services of the petitioner were not found satisfactory because of the aforesaid reason, his services were terminated. It is contended that such a reason was not justified as the commission of such an offence was not in relation to the performance of duties nor could it be said that because the petitioner was involved in such a crime, ultimately in which he was acquitted, he could not be retained in service. However, these aspects have not been taken note of by the Central Administrative Tribunal and wrongly the original application of the petitioner has been dismissed. Therefore, this writ petition is required to be filed.

(3.) WE have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record minutely.