UNION OF INDIA Vs. HARIOM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the order dated 9th December, 2000 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench in O. A. No. 469 of 1994.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated, are that the respondent Hariom was employed in temporary capacity in B. S. F. Academy, Tekanpur on 16-12-1984. He was arrested in connection with the theft of one Rifle by the Police on 24-6-1985. Since he had not disclosed about the pendency of the aforesaid criminal case at the time of his appointment, his services were terminated by the Director of the B. S. F. Academy on 16-8-1995 under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Aggrieved by the said order dated 16-8-1985 terminating his services, respondent filed an O. A. No. 296 of 1988 before Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench and after hearing parties, the Tribunal set-aside the order of termination by its order dated 18-8-1989 and directed the petitioner to pass fresh order alter holding regular departmental enquiry. In compliance of the said order of Tribunal, a departmental enquiry was held and after completion of departmental enquiry, the disciplinary authority passed an order on 11-12-1993 removing the respondent from service. The respondent filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the said order of removal and the appellate authority remanded the case back for further enquiry. The respondent then filed O. A. No. 174 of 1993 before Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal and the Tribunal disposed of the said O. A. directing that the departmental proceedings be completed within a stipulated time. Thereafter, the enquiry was concluded and order dated 11-12-1993 was passed by the disciplinary authority terminating services of the respondent. The respondent went up in appeal but the appellate authority confirmed the said order of termination and dismissed the appeal by order dated 24-2-1999. Thereafter, the respondent filed O. A. No. 469 of 1999 before the Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal and by the impugned order dated 9th December, 2000, the Tribunal set-aside the order of disciplinary authority removing respondent from service as well as the impugned order of the appellate authority confirming the said order of removal and directed the petitioners to reinstate the respondent within two months. By the impugned order dated 9th December, 2000, the Tribunal also directed that the respondent be paid 50% backwages from the date of removal to the date of reinstatement and a fresh order be passed for treatment of the period from 17-8-1985 to 17-8-1989 in accordance with the rules.

(3.) MR. T. C. Singhal learned Counsel for the petitioners submitted that the respondent was appointed in temporary capacity and under Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 petitioners have a right to terminate the services of the respondent at any time and therefore, in accordance with Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, petitioners had terminated services of the respondent by order dated 24-6-1985. He vehemently submitted that this aspect of the matter has not been considered by the Tribunal in the impugned order dated 9th December, 2000 passed in O. A. No. 469 of 1994.