Central Administrative Tribunal - Mumbai
Phoolchand Rammurat Yadav vs Central Railway on 14 July, 2025
1 OA No. 2222 of 2019
Central Administrative Tribunal
Mumbai Bench: Mumbai
Original Application No.2222/2019
Date of Decision: 14th day of July, 2025
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.G.Sewlikar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Sangam Narain Srivastava, Member (A)
Shri Phoolchand S/o Rammurat Yadav,
Age 28 years, Occ: Contract Labour,
R/at C/o Rajnath Rammurat Yadav,
Railway Quarter RB-II/280/A, Gulmohor Colony,
Central Railway, Ajni, Nagpur 440 003. ... Applicant
(By Advocate Mrs. Rashi Deshpande)
Versus
1. Union of India, Through General Manager,
Central Railway, Mumbai CST 400 001.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra,
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh
Munarshi
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2. Senior Divisional Personnel Officer,
DRM's office Central Railway,
Pune - 441 101.
3. Assistant Divisional Mechanical Engineer (DSL),
Loco Shed, Central Railway, Ghorpadi,
Pune - 441101. ... Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.P. Lambat)
(ORAL)ORDER
Per: Justice M.G. Sewlikar, Member (J)
This is an application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 to set aside the undated order 2 OA No. 2222 of 2019 of termination (Annexure A-1) and order dated 18th July, 2019 (Annexure A-2).
2. Applicant's case in brief is that he was appointed as Fresh Substitute in Group 'D' vide order dated 02nd December, 2016. The appointment order states that his services were liable to be terminated without any explanation. The appointment order further states that the information furnished by the applicant was found to be incorrect and if the Railway Administration does not require his services, he had no right in keeping him and to continue in railway service. The appointment Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= order further mentions that after completion of service of 120 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 days, he will be granted temporary status. His services would be on probation for a period of two years.
3. The services of the applicant was found to be unsatisfactory and, therefore, it was terminated vide order dated Nil. The applicant challenged this order by preferring appeal. Appeal came to be dismissed vide order dated 18 th July, 2019 (Annexure A-2). The applicant has challenged both these orders (Annexure A-1 and Annexure A-2).
3 OA No. 2222 of 2019
4. Learned counsel for the applicant and the learned counsel for the respondents have been heard.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the applicant was appointed as Substitute and in terms of Railway Service Rules, after completion of 120 days, the applicant was to be granted temporary status. Though temporary status was not conferred on him, his name was recommended by the respondents. However, subsequently, the services of the applicant were terminated on account of his unsatisfactory performance.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh MunarshiDN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone=
6. Learned counsel further submits that removal from 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 services on account of unsatisfactory performance amounts to stigma for which inquiry ought to have been initiated. The applicant has rendered 395 days continuous service which means more than one year continuous service. The applicant should have been therefore, terminated only after inquiry. For this purpose, she has placed reliance on the case of Shri Anup Kumar Vs. General Manager & Anr., decided by Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.3640/2012. She has placed reliance on para 6 of the case of Shri Anup Kumar (supra), which reads as under:4 OA No. 2222 of 2019
"....6. It is trite law that any action which is actuated with malafides which is established to its hilt on laying down a foundation would vitiate the order as it is an anti-thesis not only to the rule of law but against justice as well.
37. In my considered view the grounds of termination against applicant were though under the guise of unsatisfactory performance or unwillingness of applicant to work, which on misuse of the powers are really founded on the misconduct of applicant which has not been probed into and thus deprivation of reasonable opportunity and when resort to the rules under the Discipline and Appeal Rules ibid the decision of the Full Bench would not be applicable in the present case as it is not the unsatisfactory performance on which services of applicant have been dispensed with but it is the attitude and conduct of the supervisory officer which led to non-accord of duty to applicant. However, I am not competent authority to adjudge this. The same will be considered as per law.
Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30'
38. In my considered view the order is punitive under the guise of simple order of termination; applicant's services Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 have been dispensed with without resort to the disciplinary proceedings, which is not only bad in law but against equity and all cannons of justice.
39. It is very strange that there is no definite finding of unauthorized absence. Once, in show cause notice an opportunity to resume duty, failing which stipulation required disciplinary action shows that absence was not established. As such, terminating the services is against the decision of respondents and in its contradiction to hold disciplinary proceedings. This is a short cut adopted by respondents to dispense with the services of applicant.
7. We have given thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the applicant. 5 OA No. 2222 of 2019
8. The applicant was, admittedly, appointed as Substitute. In terms of Rule 1515 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual, which deals with the rights and privileges admissible to the Substitutes, the said Rule 1515 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:
"1515. Rights and privileges admissible to the Substitutes
- Substitutes should be afforded all the rights and privileges as may be admissible to temporary railway servants, from time to time on completion of four months continuous service. Substitute school teachers may, however, be afforded temporary status after they have put in continuous service of three months and their services should be treated as continuous for all purposes except seniority on their eventual absorption against regular posts after selection."Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi
DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
9. In terms of this Rule, substitutes are entitled to all the rights and privileges as are admissible to temporary railway servants on completion of four months of continuous service. The Note under Rule 1515 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual reads as under:
"The conferment of temporary status on the Substitutes on completion of four months' continuous service will not entitle them to automatic absorption/appointment to railway service unless they are in turn for such appointment on the basis of their position in select lists and/or they are selected in the approved manner for appointment to regular railway posts".6 OA No. 2222 of 2019
10. These Rules clearly indicate that on conferment of temporary status on the substitutes, they are not entitled to automatic absorption/appointment to railway service unless they are in turn for such appointment on the basis of their position in select list or they are selected in the approved manner for appointment to regular railway post. Therefore, grant of temporary status does not equate them to the post of a railway servant holding permanent post. Even if temporary status is granted to the substitute, his status as probationer still continues. Appointment order (Annexure A-5) states that the applicant Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= would be on probation for a period of two years. 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
11. The date of appointment of the applicant was 02nd December, 2018. Within two years the applicant has been terminated for unsatisfactory performance. The question is whether unsatisfactory performance itself amounts to a stigma. This issue is no longer res integra. The Supreme Court in the case of Wainganga Bahuuddeshiya Vikas Sanstha through President B.B. Karanjekar & Ors. Vs. Ku. Jaya & Ors., Civil Appeal No.6226/2019 has held thus:
7 OA No. 2222 of 2019
"....9. We find that the Division Bench has travelled much beyond the controversy involved in the writ petition. The appointment of respondent No. 1 is categorically on ad-hoc basis till such time full time Lecturer is appointed. The order of termination of services is simpliciter without any stigma noticing that the work is not satisfactory. The appointment of respondent No. 1 was not on probation but, it was purely ad- hoc appointment and the Management has kept right to terminate the services during ad-hoc period on account of unsatisfactory work.
10. Learned counsel for the appellants referred to the judgment in Radhey Shyam Gupta v. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. & Anr., (1999) 2 SCC 21 wherein, it was held as under:
"33. It will be noticed from the above decisions that the termination of the services of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactory Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' will not be punitive inasmuch as the above facts are merely the motive and not the foundation. The reason Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 why they are the motive is that the assessment is not done with the object of finding out any misconduct on the part of the officer, as stated by Shah, J. (as he then was) in Ram Narayan Das case [AIR 1961 SC 177 : (1961) 1 SCR 606 : (1961) 1 LLJ 552] . It is done only with a view to decide whether he is to be retained or continued in service. The position is not different even if a preliminary enquiry is held because the purpose of a preliminary enquiry is to find out if there is prima facie evidence or material to initiate a regular departmental enquiry. It has been so decided in Champaklal case [AIR 1964 SC 1854 : (1964) 1 LLJ 752] . The purpose of the preliminary enquiry is not to find out misconduct on the part of the officer and if a termination follows without giving an opportunity, it will not be bad. Even in a case where a regular departmental enquiry is started, a charge-memo issued, reply obtained, and an enquiry officer is appointed -- if at that point of time, the enquiry is dropped and a simple notice of termination is 8 OA No. 2222 of 2019 passed, the same will not be punitive because the enquiry officer has not recorded evidence nor given any findings on the charges. That is what is held in Sukh Raj Bahadur case [AIR 1968 SC 1089 : (1968) 3 SCR 234 : (1970) 1 LLJ 373] and in Benjamin case [(1967) 1 LLJ 718 (SC)] . In the latter case, the departmental enquiry was stopped because the employer was not sure of establishing the guilt of the employee. In all these cases, the allegations against the employee merely raised a cloud on his conduct and as pointed by Krishna Iyer, J.
in Gujarat Steel Tubes case [(1980) 2 SCC 593 : 1980 SCC (L&S) 197] the employer was entitled to say that he would not continue an employee against whom allegations were made the truth of which the employer was not interested to ascertain. In fact, the employer by opting to pass a simple order of termination as permitted by the terms of appointment or as permitted by the rules was conferring a benefit on the employee by passing a simple order of termination so that the employee would not suffer from any stigma which would attach to the Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' rest of his career if a dismissal or other punitive order was passed. The above are all examples where the Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 allegations whose truth has not been found, and were merely the motive."
11) In Pavanendra Narayan Verma v. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Sciences & Anr., (2002) 1 scc 520 wherein, the inquiry conducted to assess the fitness of an employee for continuing on probation was not found to be punitive, the Court held as under:
"21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full-scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present, the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld.9 OA No. 2222 of 2019
xxx xxx xxx
31. Returning now to the facts of the case before us. The language used in the order of termination is that the appellant's "work and conduct has not been found to be satisfactory". These words are almost exactly those which have been quoted in Dipti Prakash Banerjee case[(1999) 3 SCC 60 : 1999 SCC (L&S) 596] as clearly falling within the class of non-stigmatic orders of termination. It is, therefore safe to conclude that the impugned order is not ex facie stigmatic.
32. We are also not prepared to hold that the enquiry held prior to the order of termination turned this otherwise innocuous order into one of punishment. An employer is entitled to satisfy itself as to the competence of a probationer to be confirmed in service and for this purpose satisfy itself fairly as to the truth Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' of any allegation that may have been made about the employee. A charge-sheet merely details the allegations Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 so that the employee may deal with them effectively. The enquiry report in this case found nothing more against the appellant than an inability to meet the requirements for the post. None of the three factors catalogued above for holding that the termination was in substance punitive exists here.
12. In Rajesh Kohli v. High Court of Jammu and Kashmir & Anr., (2010) 12 SCC 783 , again this Court held that order of termination is a fallout of unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis of overall performance. The Court held as under:
"28. In the present case, the order of termination is a fallout of his unsatisfactory service adjudged on the basis of his overall performance and the manner in which he conducted himself. Such satisfaction even if recorded that his service is unsatisfactory would not make the order stigmatic or punitive as sought to be submitted by the petitioner. On the 10 OA No. 2222 of 2019 basis of the aforesaid resolution, the matter was referred to the State Government for issuing necessary orders."
12. From this decision of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the termination of the services of a temporary servant or one on probation, on the basis of adverse entries or on the basis of an assessment that his work is not satisfactory will not be punitive as it is merely the motive and not the foundation. The Supreme Court has further held that this is done only with a view to decide whether he is to be retained or continued in service. The position is not different even if a preliminary enquiry is held because the Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi purpose of a preliminary enquiry is to find out if there is prima DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 facie evidence or material to initiate a regular departmental enquiry. The purpose of the preliminary enquiry is to not to find out misconduct on the part of the officer and if a termination follows without giving an opportunity, it will not be bad. Even in a case where a regular departmental enquiry is started, a charge-
memo issued, reply obtained, and enquiry officer is appointed, if at that point of time, the enquiry is dropped and simple notice of termination is passed, the same will not be punitive because the 11 OA No. 2222 of 2019 enquiry officer has not recorded evidence nor given any finding on the charges.
13. Having regard to this, we do not find that the unsatisfactory work of the applicant was the foundation. In our considered opinion, it was only a motive for his termination. We, therefore, do not find any substance in the OA. The OA stands dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
Digitally signed by Deepti Ganesh Munarshi DN: C=IN, O=Personal, OID.2.5.4.65=dd2229ccb2a64933849d0e889f7908d1, Phone= (Sangam Narain Srivastava) (Justice M.G.Sewlikar) 270b8c883fb6c7df159699dde8a3a29e49a591f4547843867fc06f0095732d99, PostalCode=400083, S=Maharashtra, Deepti Ganesh Munarshi SERIALNUMBER=60e5a202fd00f69f0731b41e2e3bdfa180f471e3c55c542947568cc8f7d6a4f4, CN=Deepti Ganesh Munarshi Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2025.07.29 11:14:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 Member (A) Member (J) dm.