UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRAKASH KUMAR GAJRE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 1. The present writ application has been filed for setting aside the order dated 20.2.2004 passed by a Division Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 286 of 2001, by which the Tribunal has allowed the said case and quashed the order dated 11/13.4.2000 passed by petitioner No. 2, Director, Central Bureau of Investigation and also quashed the order No. 95 of 2000 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the Superintendent of Police, Central Bureau of Investigation (petitioner No. 3) terminating the service of respondent No. 1, Sri Prakash Kumar Gajre and the Tribunal further directed that the applicant (Respondent No. 1) would be put back in duty with all consequential benefits.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1 filed the aforesaid original application challenging his termination order from the post of Public Prosecutor by order dated 11/13.4.2000 issued by the Director, C.B.I, and office order No. 95/2000 dated 4.5.2000 issued by the Superintendent of Police, C.B.I., Patna. The case of the applicant (respondent No. 1) is that he was appointed as Public Prosecutor on the recommendation of the U.P.S.C. on 30.6.1992. He joined his post on 2.11.1992 at Calcutta and subsequently was transferred to Patna in July, 1996. However, no confirmation order was received by him nor an order regarding extension of his probation was received by him. In 1997 the then Deputy Legal Advisor on account of grudge and ulterior motive started recording adverse remark against him and subsequently respondent No. 1 received a memo dated 13.4.1998 extending his period of probation for six months from 7.2.1998. On 24,3.2000, he received some adverse report from the said Deputy Legal Advisor for the period 6.7.1997 to 31.12.1997 and was asked to make representation against the same. He was again communicated another adverse report on 24.3.2000 for the period from 1.1.1998 to 7.6.1998, The third adverse report of the same date, namely, 24.3.2000 for the period from 8.6.1998 to 31.12.1998 was also communicated to him. Before he could send his reply to the same, he received the termination order on 4.5.2000 under proviso to Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service ( Temporary Service 1 Rules, 1965 along with an amount of his one month's pay plus allowance. His representation to the Secretary, Personnel, Government of India was not acted upon and, thus, he approached the Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 286/01.

(3.) THE petitioners of this writ petition also filed their written statement before the Tribunal. In the said written statement, the stand of the petitioners was that respondent No. 1 was appointed as Public Prosecutor in the C.B.I. on 2.11.1992 on probation for a period of two years. In the offer of appointment, it was clearly mentioned that the probation period may be extended at the discretion of the competent authority; during the period of probation, his appointment may be terminated without notice and without assigning any reasons thereof by the competent authority at any time by a month's notice by either side, or by making payment of pay and allowance for the period of notice the appointment may be terminated forthwith also. THE further case of the petitioners is that the confirmation of probation was not automatic but it has to be followed by formal order and that there is specific Government instruction that until the issue of specific order of satisfactory completion of probation, such probationer shall not be deemed to have completed probation. It was stated in the written statement that respondent No. 1's case for completion of probation was taken up in time but in the absence of submission by him of resume of work despite reminder the same could not be finally considered. Further in 1993, he was given adverse remarks but his A.C.R. could not be made available to the Departmental Promotion Committee because the appellate authority had not settled the said adverse remark. When the A.C.R. became made available in July, 1997, his case was placed before the D.P.C. which did not consider him fit for completion of satisfactory probation and recommended for extension of probation twice; firstly up to 6.2.1998 and secondly up to 6.8.1998. THE further case of the petitioners is that the performance of respondent No. 1 remained unsatisfactory and ultmately on recommendation of the D.P.C. the Director, C.B.I., being appointing authority approved the termination of his service forthwith in terms of his appointment letter by-order dated 13.4.2000 and consequential order was passed by the S.P. C.B. I, A.C.B., Patna by office order No. 95 dated 4.5.2000.