Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Virendra Singh vs Cabinet Secretariat on 11 September, 2025
1
Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.4638/2018
This the 11th day of August, 2025
Hon'ble Mr. R N Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. B. Anand, Member (A)
Virendra Singh (ID No.09240V),
(aged· about 33.years)
S/o late Shri Dharamvir Singh,
(Ex-Senior Field Assistant(MT) (Group 'C')
Cabinet Secretariat, New Delhi
R/o Village Barhpura, PO ·Dadri,
Distt. Gautam Budh Nagar (UP)
(Mob:09319171247).
... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. L. R. Khatana )
VERSUS
1. Union of India,
(through Secretary (R) Govt. of India,
Cabinet Secretariat,
Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi'-110003 .
2. Joint Secretary (Pers.),
Cabinet Secretariat,
Pt. Deendayal Antyodaya Bhawan,
CGO Complex, Lodi Road,
New Delhi-110003 ...Respondents
(By Advocate :Mr. Y. P. Singh)
2
Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018
O R D E R (ORAL)
By Hon'ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J):
In the present OA, filed under section 19 of the AT Act, 1985, the applicant has challenged the order dated 08.12.2017 (Annexure A-1) vide which the respondents have terminated his services and it is directed that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of notice at the same rates at which he was drawing, immediately before the termination of his service or as the case may be for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. The applicant has prayed for following relief(s) in the present OA:-
"A. That in the facts and circumstances of this case, this Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to hold the impugned order dated 08.12.2017 as illegal, arbitrary, punitive, perverse and mala fide in law and quash and set aside the same and direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits of continuity of service, seniority, pay and allowances etc. B. Award exemplary costs against the respondents and in favour of the applicant:
C. Pass any such other or further order or direction as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of this case."
2. Pursuant to the notice issued to the respondents, they have filed counter reply wherein they have disputed and denied the claim of the applicant and have prayed for dismissal of the OA. The applicant has filed rejoinder, 3 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 thereby reiterating his claim and grounds in support thereof.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record.
4. The undisputed facts are that the pursuant to selection process initiated by the respondents, the applicant was selected for the post of Senior Field Assistant (Motor Transport) through the Regional Direct Recruitment in March, 2013. Offer of appointment was issued to him in August, 2014 when verification report was received from all the Quarters except District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and nothing adverse was reported in the Character and Antecedent Report .
5. Consequentially, the applicant joined the post of SFA (MT) in the office of the respondents at Lucknow on 19.08.2014 and he was further posted at respondents office at Patna. On such appointment in terms of the relevant rules the applicant was on probation for 2 years. In view of the provision of Rule 140(3) of the R&AW (RC&S) Amendment Rules, 2008 the probation is extendable for maximum period of 1 year, where departmental or legal proceeding is pending against the officer/official. The respondents sent reminders to the 4 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 D.M. Gautam Budh Nagar from time to time to expedite the Character and Antecedent Report and eventually, such report was received from D.M. Gautam Budh Nagar that FIR No. 686/2015 under section 307/324 of IPC has been registered against the applicant in the year 2015. Thus, the said FIR was registered after appointment of the applicant to the aforesaid post. Despite the aforesaid, the applicant did not inform about registration of the case FIR to the respondents. Of course, the applicant had informed the respondents that the concerned police has filed a closer report qua the applicant in the said case FIR on 07.05.2016.
6. The respondents have asserted in para 4.3 of the counter reply that the applicant has not mentioned the exact manner/ nature of quarrel in his written statement dated 01.03.2016 submitted in the office of the respondents in response to memo dated 15.02.2016 and thus, he has suppressed the full information of the case to his benefits. It is admitted case that the applicant has been granted cash reward alongwith two others vide the respondent's order dated 12.11.2016 (Annexure A-3 Colly) and 23.01.2017 (Annexure A-3 Colly). It is also not in dispute that the applicant has been rated as "very good" in his APAR for the relevant period. Besides, he 5 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 had also qualified 8th Basic Intelligence Course for SFAs (MT).
7. Learned counsel for the applicant in support of the claim has argued as under:-
(i) Once the applicant has worked for the maximum period stipulated under the rules for keeping applicant under probation, in view of the settled law the applicant is deemed to have been confirmed on the post under reference. He submits that applicant admittedly joined the post on 19.08.2014 and he was terminated w.e.f.
08.12.2017, thus he has completed more than 3 years on the date of his impugned termination. Thus the rules applicable for terminating a probationer will not be applicable in the case of the applicant. In support of his argument he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court Commissioner of Police, Hubli & Another Vs. R. S. More in Civil Appeal No. 177 of 2000 reported in 2003 and further the judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Sandeep Kumar vs. High Court of Delhi in W.P (C) No. 5367/2021.
(ii) Once the applicant stands as deemed confirmed on the relevant post, termination of the applicant vide the impugned order by invoking the Rule 5 (1) of the Central Civil Services Rules, 1965 is not tenable in law, inasmuch 6 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 as the said provision is applicable only in case of temporary civil servant and not to confirmed or regular civil service.
(iii) Though the impugned order of termination on the face of it is an order simpliciter, however keeping in view the applicant's admitted service records for the relevant period, this Tribunal is having jurisdiction in judicial review to lift the veil to ascertain into the foundation/motive for such termination. In support of his prayer he has placed reliance on law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee (1999) .
(iv) Even if the impugned order appears to be order simplicitor, however the relevant pleadings on behalf of the respondents clearly indicate that the foundation for termination of the applicant is misconduct and therefore the said impugned termination order is not sustainable in law.
8. On the other hand, Mr. Y. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents has vehemently disputed and denied the claim of the applicant. He has argued that the respondents department is a very sensitive organisation of Govt. of India , which requires employees of high moral and antecedents. He submits that despite opportunities accorded to the applicant, has not disclosed 7 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 the pendency of the case FIR against him and the factum of pendency of the criminal case against the applicant came to the notice of respondents only from the report of the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar and complaint received from his wife. The applicant's wife has disclosed his involvement in the relevant case FIR , which is about his violent behaviour, drinking and abusing his wife. He submits that for his such act and conduct the applicant has also regretted before the authority amongst the respondents.
9. The respondents have also produced the relevant original records, wherein the complaints of the applicant's wife and the reports of the District Magistrate, Gautam Budh Nagar have been considered and which has led to passing of the impugned orders.
10. We have perused the records. It is evident that the DC, SB, Patna inquired into the matter and vide his report dated 28.07.2016 reported that several complaints from the wife of the applicant were received about his violent behaviour, drinking and abusing his wife. Besides, this, complaint on telephone, his wife had also given written complaint to DC Patna about the intolerable behaviour of the applicant.
8Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018
11. The Patna office deputed an official to assess the situation and reported that all the rooms of the house were opened and he was sleeping having cut marks in his hand, there was sign of bleeding and found smell (may be of wine/sleeping piles).
12. In para 8 of their note dated 01.12.2017, it is recorded that " in view of the above reports indicating acts of official, which appear vanity of CCS (Conduct Rules), it may be of consideration that his continuation a sensitive department may not be desirable.
13. Mr. Y. P. Singh, learned counsel for the respondents had argued with due application of mind, the respondents have taken a decision to dismiss the services of the applicant and there is no illegality in the impugned order, he further contests that argument on behalf of the applicant that the impugned order is result of non- application of mind and or in violation of any rule is misleading and misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law.
14. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties.
15. It is not in dispute that the maximum period to keep the official including the applicant under probation as stipulated in the relevant rule is 03 years. Undisputedly, 9 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 the applicant has completed more than 03 years 100 days in service after his joining on 19.08.2014. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case R. S. More (supra) in para 7 has ruled as under:-
"7. In High Court of M.P. v. Satya Narayan Jhavar a three-Judge Bench of this Court, while examining the question of deemed confirmation in service jurisprudence has categorized three classes of cases on the point. It was pointed out in SCC para 11 at p. 169 as under:
"11. The question of deemed confirmation in service jurisprudence, which is dependent upon the language of the relevant service rules, has been the subject-matter of consideration before this Court, times without number in various decisions and there are three lines of cases on this point. One line of cases is where in the service rules or in the letter of appointment a period of probation is specified and power to extend the same is also conferred upon the authority without prescribing any maximum period of probation and if the officer is continued beyond the prescribed or extended period, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. In such cases there is no bar against termination at any point of time after expiry of the period of probation. The other line of cases is that where while there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The inference in such cases is that the officer concerned is deemed to have been confirmed upon expiry of the maximum period of probation in case before its expiгу the order of termination has not been passed. The last line of cases is where, though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, but the same requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximun period of probation has expired and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired."
The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Sandeep Kumar (supra) in para 28 is ruled as under:- 10 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018
"28. Similarly, in the judgment dated 05th February, 2020 in W.P.(C) 1332/2020, Ms. Shayda Abbasi v. The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, this Court has held that there cannot be any automatic confirmation merely because the initial period of probation has expired. Thus, it has been held as follows:
"8. On the question of deemed confirmation, this Court has in its Judgment dated 21 January, 2016 in W.P.(C) No. 2836/2010 V.K. Mittal v. Registrar General, High Court of Delhi, summarised the legal position, in the light of the 1972 Rules of this Court as under: "64. The legal position on 'deemed confirmation can be summarised as under:
(a) If in the rule or order of appointment, a period of probation is specified and a power to extend probation is also conferred and the officer is allowed to continue beyond the prescribed period of probation, he cannot be deemed to be confirmed. At the end of such probation he becomes merely qualified or eligible for substantive permanent appointment.
(b) There is the other line of cases where even though there is a provision in the rules for initial probation and extension thereof, a maximum period for such extension is also provided beyond which it is not permissible to extend probation. The presumption about continuation, beyond the period of probation, as a probationer stands negatived by the fixation of a maximum time-limit for the extension of probation. In such cases the officer concerned must be deemed to have been confirmed.
(c) A third line of cases is where though under the rules maximum period of probation is prescribed, it requires a specific act on the part of the employer by issuing an order of confirmation and of passing a test for the purposes of confirmation. In such cases, even if the maximum period of probation has expired, and neither any order of confirmation has been passed nor has the person concerned passed the requisite test, he cannot be deemed to have been confirmed merely because the said period has expired.
(d) While there could be some other cases where the rules do not contemplate issuance of such a specific order in writing but merely require that there will not be any automatic confirmation or some acts, other than issuance of specific orders, are required to be 11 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 performed by the partles. Eve those cases, there would be rid 'deemed confirmation" 9. Thereafter the Court clarified that Rule 8 (a) of 1972 Rules "makes it evident that confirmation is not automatic". It further noted that "with there being no maximum period of probation, the mere fact that the initial period was completed would not automatically lead to a confirmation".
10. Learned counsel for the Respondent has placed before this Court a copy of the office order dated 29th January, 1996 Issued by this Court on its administrative side laying down the guidelines that would apply for the confirmation of an employee on a given post till the level of Assistant and equal status posts. A perusal of the said office order reveals that in order to consider the case for confirmation, a reference has to be made to the Annual Confidential Reports of the last five years.
11. With the Petitioner having worked for approximately three years, the question of considering her case for confirmation in this Court would not even otherwise have arisen prior to her tendering her resignation in order to join the post of Junior Hindi Translator in the MoD. Viewed from any angle, therefore, the case of the Petitioner that that she should be deemed to have been confirmed during her service in this Court cannot be accepted.
12. For the aforesaid reasons the Court is of the view that there is no merit in this petition. It is accordingly dismissed."
16. In the light of the admitted facts rule and judgment of the Hon'ble Apex court referred to hereinabove, the applicant stood as deemed to have been confirmed on the post of SFA (MT). Once the applicant stood as to be confirmed on the said post on completion of 03 years of service, we do not have any doubt to hold that termination of the service of the applicant by invoking the provision of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services 12 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 is not tenable in eyes of law.
17. Otherwise also as recorded hereinabove, the respondent's counter reply as well as the relevant order on original file clearly indicate, that the foundation for passing of order of termination is alleged misconduct of the applicant and that too on verification /enquiry conducted by the respondents behind the back of the applicant and the same is not sustainable in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Ors. (1999) and judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Nina Lath Gupta (2024).
18. In the light of aforesaid facts and circumstances, OA deserves to be allowed and the same is allowed with the following orders:-
I. Impugned order dated 08.12.2017 is set aside. II. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant.
III. The applicant shall be entitled for all consequential benefits i.e. continuity in service, seniority, fixation of pay etc. in accordance with the rules and instructions. However, he will be entitled for back 13 Item No. 32 O.A. No.4638/2018 wages only at the rate of 50% of the pay admissible to him.
IV. The aforesaid directions shall be complied by the respondents as expeditiously as possible, and preferably within 8 weeks of receipt of copy of this order.
V. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to initiate disciplinary proceedings, if they so decide, of course in accordance with relevant rules and instructions on the s ubject. No costs.
19. The original file submitted by the respondents through Mr. Y. P. Singh, learned counsel is returned to them through him as received .
( B. Anand ) ( R.N. Singh ) Member (A) Member (J) /Neha Verma/