Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Oa No.3302/2 vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through on 12 October, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench OA Nos.3302/2011, 3310/2011, 3336/2011, 3337/2011, 3338/2011, 3339/2011, 3340/2011, 3341/2011, 3342/2011, 3343/2011, 3344/2011, 3345/2011, 3346/2011, 3347/2011, 3348/2011, 3349/2011, 3350/2011, 3351/2011, 3352/2011, 3353/2011, 3354/2011, 3355/2011, 3356/2011, 3357/2011, 3358/2011, 3376/2011, 3386/2011 with MA No.2471/2011, MANo.2472/2011, OA No.3411/2011, OA No.3413/2011, OA No.3414/2011 and OA No.3415/2011. New Delhi, this the 12th day of October, 2011 Honble Mr. Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman Honble Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) 1. OA No.3302/2011 Pradeep Kumar Aged 28 years, S/o Sh. Dalbir Singh R/o Village Bajaana Kalan, Distt. Sonepat, Tehsil Ganuar, PO Bajana Khurd (HR). Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 2. OA No.3310/2011 Arun Maan Aged 26 years, S/o Sh. Hawa Singh R/o Vill & PO Lawa Kalan, Tehseel Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (HR). . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 3. OA No.3336/2011 Mohan Lal Aged about 27 years, S/o Sh. Om Prakash R/o Village & PO Nigana, Tehsil Kalanour DAdri, Distt. Rohtak (HR). . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 4. OA No.3337/2011 Sandeep Kumar Aged 27 years, S/o Sh. Randhir Singh R/o Vill Turkpur, Post Office Mondera, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 5. OA No.3338/2011 Dhanram Aged 25 years, S/o Sh. Naseeb Singh, R/o Village & PO Nizampur, Delhi 110081. .Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 6. OA No.3339/2011 Narender Aged 29 years, S/o Sh. Dharampal, R/o H. No.1051/10, Gali No.2, Rishi Colony, near New Sabzi Mandi, Sonepat 131 001 (HR) . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 7. OA No.3340/2011 Ajit Singh Aged 28 years, S/o SH. Kartar Singh R/o Village & PO Nahra, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 8. OA No.3341/2011 Vijesh Kumar Aged 27 years, S/o Sh. Kewal Singh R/o Village & PO Makrana, Tehsil Charki Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani (HR) . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 9. OA No.3342/2011 Ravi Saroha Aged about 28 years, S/o Sh. Ranvir Singh r/o E-126, 2nd Floor, Prashant Vihar, Rohini, New Delhi 110 085. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 10. OA No.3343/2011 Som Dutt Aged 28 years, S/o Sh. Ganga Dutt, R/o Village & PO Khizer Pur Ahir, Tehsil Ganuar, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 11. OA No.3344/2011 Manoj Kumar Aged 26 years, S/o Sh. Mahender Singh R/o Village & PIO Bhainsru Khurd, Distt Rohtak, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 12. OA No.3345/2011 Vikas Aged 26 years, S/o Sh. Rajender R/o Village Thana Kalan, Tehsil Kaherkhoda, Distt Sonepat (HR). . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 13. OA No.3346/2011 Narhari Aged 26 years, S/o Sh. Bhajan lal R/o Behind Aashirwad Benquet Hall, Nodal (Palwal) Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 14. OA No.3347/2011 Chander Prakash Aged 25 years, S/o Sh. Diwan Singh R/o H. No.66, Gali No.1, Near main Bus Stand, Vill Kulasi, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 15. OA No.3348/2011 Vikram Singh Aged about 26 years, S/o sh. Satbir Singh, R/o CB-49 D, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi 110 088. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 16. OA No.3349/2011 Devender Aged 25 years, S/o Sh. Jag Mohan R/o Village & PO Khaira, Najafgarh, New Delhi 110 043. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 17. OA No.3350/2011 Ravinder Panwar Aged 28 years, S/o Sh. Vijaypal Singh, R/o Village & Post Office-Shabga, Distt. Baghpat (U.P.) . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 18. OA No.3351/2011 Krishan Aged 26 years, S/o sh. Raghbir Singh R/o Village Tewri, Post Office Bajana Khurd, Tehsil Ganuar, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 19. OA No.3352/2011 Yatendra Aged about 31 years, S/o Sh. Gouri Shankar r/o 713, Street No.15, Vijay Park, Moujpur, Delhi 110 053. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 20. OA No.3353/2011 Satish Kumar Aged 27 years, S/o Sh. Satbir Singh R/o Village & PO Bajana Khurd, Tehsil Ganuar, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 21. OA No.3354/2011 Shri Bhagwan Aged 25 years, S/o Sh. Ramender Singh, R/o Village Rasoi, P.O. RAI, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 22. OA No.3355/2011 Dinesh Kumar Aged 26 years, S/o Sh. Bhoop Singh, R/o Village & PO Makrana, Dist. Bhiwani, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 23. OA No.3356/2011 Ashok Kumar Aged 26 years, S/o Sh. Ramehar, R/o Village & PO Bakheta, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 24. OA No.3357/2011 Vikram Aged about 26 years, S/o sh. Karan Singh R/o village & PO Bajana Khurd, Tehsil anuar, Distt. Sonepat 131001 (HR). . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 25. OA No.3358/2011 Naveen Kumar Aged about 26 years, S/o Sh. Chet Ram R/o H. No.434/31, Gali No.2, New Court Road, Ashok Vihar, Sonepat 131 001 (HR) . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 26. OA No.3376/2011 Krishan Aged 29 years S/o sh. Hari Singh R/o V&PO Lawa Kalan, Tehseel Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (HR) . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri S. K. Gupta) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 27. OA No.3386/2011 1. Mukesh Kumar S/o sh. Virender Singh Fire Operator, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Place Fire Station, NCT of Delhi, New Delhi 110 001. 2. Rakesh S/o Sh. Samey Singh Fire Operator, Delhi Fire Service, G. T. Road, Shahdara Fire Station, NCT of Delhi, New Delhi 110 001. 3. Rajeev S/o Shri Suresh Chander Fire Operator, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Place Fire Station, NCT of Delhi, New Delhi 110 001. 4. Harender Singh S/o Sh. Rajbir Singh Fire Operator, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Place Fire Station, NCT of Delhi, New Delhi 110 001. 5. Ravinder Singh S/o Sh. Mehtab Singh Fire Operator, Delhi Fire Service, Connaught Place Fire Station, NCT of Delhi, New Delhi 110 001. Applicants. (By Advocate : Shri Bhawani Shanker for Pt. Sama Singh) Versus 1. NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Govt. of NCT of Delhi Delhi Secretariat, New Delhi. 2. The Director Delhi Fire Service, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Connaught Place Headquarter, Near super Bazar, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 28. OA No.3411/2011 Sh. Harish Deshwal (Fire Operator No.194/63) S/o Sh. Ajay Kumar R/o 667, Nangal Thakran, Delhi 110039. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Bhawani Shanker for Pt. Sama Singh) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Fire Services, Fire Headquarters, Connaught Circus, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 29. OA No.3413/2011 Sh. Bijender Singh (Fire Operator No.140/63) s/o sh. Kartar Singh R/o Village & PO Dichaon Kalan, New Delhi. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Bhawani Shanker for Pt. Sama Singh) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Delhi Fire Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Headquarters, Connaught Lane, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 30. OA No.3414/2011 Sh. Jagbir (Fire Operator No.138/63) S/o Sh. Ram Kishan R/o Village Fatehpur, P.O. Sondhi, Tehsil & District Jhajjar, Haryana . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Bhawani Shanker for Pt. Sama Singh) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Delhi Fire Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Headquarters, Connaught Lane, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) 31. OA No.3415/2011 Sh. Harish Kumar (Fire Operator No.38/63) S/o sh. Dayanand, R/o Village Bajitpur, Delhi 110039. . Applicant. (By Advocate : Shri Bhawani Shanker for Pt. Sama Singh) Versus 1. Government of NCT of Delhi through Chief Secretary Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Principal Secretary (Home) Government of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. The Director Directorate of Delhi Fire Services, Govt. of NCT of Delhi Headquarters, Connaught Lane, New Delhi 110 001. .. Respondents. (By Advocate : Ms. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh) : O R D E R : Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda, Member (A) :
By this common order, we are considering and deciding the issues involved in all the OAs, with the consent of the counsel for the parties, as the questions of law and facts in all the cases are same.
2. Though there are some variations in facts like the date of HMV Driving License, period of validity, appointment offer date etc. concerning each of the applicants in the respective OAs, for brevity in this common order, we are briefly referring to the facts in the OA No.3302/2011. At the request of Delhi Fire Service (DFS in short), the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (DSSSB) issued advertisement in the year 2007 with the Post Code 015/2007 to select candidates to fill up vacant posts of Fire operator in the pay scale of Rs.3200-85-4900. The applicant applied for the post. He was selected and his name was recommended by the DSSSB for appointment to the post of Fire Operator. Vide Memorandum dated 24.06.2008 he was issued offer of appointment with certain terms and conditions. He, on acceptance of the offer of appointment on 14.07.2008, was subjected to the physical endurance test. Having cleared the same, he was issued an order for admission to the training course on fire fighting meant for the post of Fire Operator (Annexure-A3). It is the case of the applicant that he has submitted the driving license issued to him by the Agra Transport Authority, a copy of which is available at the Annexure A-4. For verification of the driving license, a communication was sent by the 3rd respondent to Agra Transport Authority which in turn authenticated the applicants driving license. However, vide a letter dated 08.05.2009 (Annexure-A5 colly) and in continuation of the earlier letter dated 15.04.2009, the Chief Fire Officer, DFS wrote to the Transport Commissioner, Utter Pradesh inter alia stating that on the basis of the driving license verification report, 40 candidates selected by DSSSB were sent for training before their appointment as Fire Operators. Meanwhile, two fax messages dated 04.04.2009 and 08.04.2009 were received along with the letter dated 23.03.2009 of the Agra Licensing Authority which cast doubt on the issue of driving license from Agra Licensing Authority and the said original letters were not received in the office of the 3rd respondent. The Transport Commissioner was requested by the Director, DFS to reconfirm whether the driving licenses were issued to those forty candidates from the Agra Licensing Authority. The Regional Transport Officer, Agra was also requested by him in his letters dated 08.09.2009 and 20.11.2009 to look into the matter and inform about the genuineness and authenticity of the driving licenses issued to them. After protracted correspondence between third respondent on the one side and the Agra Licensing Authority, Regional Transport Officer, Agra, and Transport Commissioner on the other side, the matter of genuineness or otherwise of 81 driving licenses were sent to the Agra Transport Authority vide his letter dated 30.08.2010 to verify. A team of two Officers (Shri S. K. Thakur and Shri Rajesh) were deputed to Agra Transport Authority along with all relevant papers. Third respondent received on 25.11.2010 a confidential registered letter dated 15.11.2010 (Annexure-R22) which disclosed that all the 81 driving licenses were found to be forged and fake. There upon, Show Cause Notice dated 04.05.2011 (Annexure-A2) was issued to the applicant who submitted his representation dated nil (Annexure-A17). The applicants temporary service was terminated under Sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (in short CCS(TS) Rules) by third respondent vide his notice dated 30.08.2011 (Annexure-A1) which the applicant has assailed in the instant OA with the prayer to quash the impugned order and to grant consequential benefits.
3. Highlighting the background of the cases, Shri S. K. Gupta, learned counsel for the applicants would submit that only after verification of HMV driving license from Agra Transport Authority and finding the same to be genuine the applicant was allowed to join. He referred to the letters dated 23.12.2009 and 18.10.2010 of Agra Transport Authority which verified the driving licenses of 81 persons including the applicant referred to it by third respondent and found those licenses to be correct, to submit that the driving license of the applicant has also been revalidated by Agra Transport Authority. As a team was sent by 3rd respondent to Agra Transport Authority, Shri Gupta, therefore, contends that letter dated 15.11.2010 seems to have been procured. He contends how Agra Transport Authority can change its stand from what has been given earlier by a fresh letter in November, 2010, which raises doubt and suspicion. The second set of contentions advanced by Shri S. K. Gupta relates to the Show Cause Notice under CCS (CCA) Rules and Notice of termination under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. He contends that the termination notice though simplicitor but if the veil is lifted, the same will be found to be stigmatic. Shri Gupta contends that once a show cause notice under Rule 11 of the CCS (CCA) Rules was issued, proper enquiry under Rule 14 of the said Rules should have been conducted. But third respondent has not conducted any such enquiry which violates the principles of natural justice. The termination order is stigmatic as the show cause notice alleges that the driving license is forged and fake. Thus, the applicant cannot be terminated without following the normal major disciplinary proceeding without holding proper inquiry. Therefore, Shri Gupta urges to term the termination as violative of the Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the applicant has submitted detailed reply to the Show Cause Notice which has not been considered while issuing termination order. Thereafter, without conducting proper inquiry his service has been terminated by the impugned order. Drawing our attention to the show cause notice, Shri Gupta would contend that notice itself provided information on the controversial reports regarding genuineness and authenticity of HMV driving license and the same caused great prejudice to the applicant as he did not know the material / report which third respondent relied on before asking for re-verification and even the applicant was not supplied a copy of the report dated 15.11.2010. Shri Gupta mentioned that the applicant had discharged his duties as Fire Operator with utmost sincerity and efficiency with no complaint from any of his superiors. It is further stated that the applicant has at all the stages bonafidely supplied all the information required by the second and third respondents and he has not obtained the employment adopting any deceitful means or concealed any information to obtain employment. In support of these contentions he relied on the following judgments: (i) V. P. Ahuja versus State of Punjab and Others reported in AIR-2000-SC-1080; (ii) Chandra Prakash Shahi versus State of UP and Others reported in 2000-5-SCC-152; (iii) Ms. Rominder Randhawa versus All India Council for Technical Education and Others [OA No.2169/2009 decided by this Tribunal on 6.10.2009] and (iv) Dr. Aman Dua versus All India Institute of Medical Sciences [TA No.354/2009 decided by the Tribunal on 8.10.2009]. Shri Bhawani Shanker appearing on behalf of Pt. Sama Singh learned counse represented the applicants in 5 OAs [OA No. 3386/2011, OA No. 3411/2011, OA No. 3413/2011, OA No. 3414/2011, and OA No. 3415/2011]. He endorsed the above contentions advanced by Shri S K Gupta.
4. On receipt of notice from the Tribunal, the third respondent has filed reply affidavit in all the OAs. First and second respondents, though received notice from the Tribunal have preferred not to file the counter. We were informed during the hearing on 30.09.2011 that 1st and 2nd respondents being pro forma parties, the counter reply submitted by the 3rd respondent would suffice.
5. Opposing the contentions advanced by the counsel for the applicant, Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi with Sh. Harpreet Singh learned counsel for 3rd respondent would submit that the order dated 30.08.2011 issued to the applicant was neither punitive nor stigmatic, as the order was simple notice granting time after which the temporary service of the applicant would be terminated under Rule 5 (1) of the CCS (TS) Rules. Referring to the Show Cause Notice, she contended that it was specified that certain adverse reports had been received with regard to the applicants HMV driving license and on the consideration of the applicants reply thereon, further verification was done in Agra Transport Authority. Further, a team of two officers visited the Agra Transport Authority. On the basis of confidential report dated 15.11.2010 received from the said Authority, the 3rd respondent came to the conclusion that applicants HMV driving license was forged and fake one. The information and copy of his driving license given by him was prior to his employment as Fire Operator i.e. during the selection process conducted by the DSSSB and the same was found to be wrong and false. The 3rd respondent issued the termination order. She submits that the show cause notice has not vitiated the process culminating in the termination of temporary service, as the cause of such step relates to the pre-employment period. In this context, she places her reliance on our judgment in the case of Aman Singh Parihar versus Union of India and Others [OA No.1657/2008 decided on 12.07.2011] to submit that all these present OAs are fully covered by the said order. Thus, her contention is that the termination order is not stigmatic and punitive. Her second set of contentions relate to the point that in the facts of these cases, principles of natural justice will not be applicable, as the termination orders are not the result of any disciplinary proceeding and the show cause notice though issued under Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, is only to get the response from the applicant. She relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Sartaj and Another versus State of U. P. and Others [2006-2-SCC-315]. Third set of contentions are that the applicant has secured his employment as the Fire Operator in DFS on the basis of fake and forged driving license alleged to have been issued by Agra Transport Authority. Therefore, her contention is that they are not eligible to be considered less to say they can be appointed as Fire Operators. Reliance was placed by her on the judgment of Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal decided on 29.04.2003 in Avtar Singh and Others versus Union of India and Others [2004-1-SLJ-242 CAT] and judgment of Honble Apex court in the matters of R. Vishwanatha Pillai versus State of Kerala and Others [2004-2-SCC-105]. In view of the above contention, Mrs. Oberoi urges that all the OAs should be dismissed.
6. Having heard the contentions of the parties, we carefully perused their respective pleadings and relied on judgments with the assistance of their counsels. The controversy involves questions of law and facts. The issues for our determination are three fold, though interlinked and intertwined; (i) Whether the termination notice dated 30.08.2011 is stigmatic / punitive; (ii) whether there is violation of principle of natural justice in the entire case; and (iii) whether non-supply of reports referred to and relied on by the third respondent in the show cause notice dated 04.5.2011has prejudiced the applicant?
7. We may advert to the first issue. Is the termination order stigmatic / punitive? The counsel for the applicants termed the notice of termination dated 30.08.2011 as stigmatic on the ground that though notice dated 30.08.2011 appeared to be simple one, on lifting the veil the show cause notice dated o4.5.2011, which preceded the simple order, would disclose how the same was stigmatic and punitive. The above ground has been repelled by the respondents. At this stage, we may refer to those two notices viz (i) a Show Cause Notice on 4.05.2011 and (ii) a Notice of termination dated 30.08.2011. We may reproduce below both the notices:
I. Show Cause Notice issued vide No. F. 2 / Rectt./ Admn/ F.O/ DFS/part File-1/8256 dated 4.5.2011.
SHOW CAUSE NOTICE
1. In pursuance to the D.S.S.S.B., Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi letter No.F.1(58)/DSSSB/P&P/08/272 dated 19.05.2008 Sh. PARDEEP KUMAR S/o SH. DALBIR SINGH Roll No.15113902 had been offered the post of Fire Operator in the pay scale of Rs.3200-85-4900 plus usual allowances as admissible under the rules vide OM. No.F2/DFS/Rectt/Estt/2008/835 dated 24/06/2008 on certain terms and conditions which included the following:
His appointment will be purely temporary for all purposes and liable to be terminated at any time without assigning any reasons during the probation period.
His appointment will be for a period of two years as provided under the Recruitment Rules after successful completion of training.
His appointment will be subject to verification of Education Qualification and Driving License from the concerned authority.
The appointment may be terminated at any time by one month notice given be either side viz. the appointee or the appointing authority without assigning any reason.
He was required to give his acceptance for the post offered to him.
2. Sh. Pardeep Kumar accepted the offer of post of Fire Operator on 14/07/2009.
3. That his Driving License No.3326/AG/06 dated 30/09/03 was sent to Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Agra for verification vide letter No.F2(12)/42/DFS/HQ/Vig./2008/3442 dated 26/12/08 with the request to verify:
I. Whether the Driving License has been issued by your authority.
II. In case it has been issued initially by some other Authority and than endorsed by your authority, the details be provided with documents for further verification from the authority concerned.
4. The Licensing Authority, M.V. Deptt, Agra vide letter No.146/D.L./Satyapan/09 dated 21/01/2009 sent the photocopy of Driving License No.3326/AG/06 dated 30/09/03 duly attested after verifying from their office records.
5. On his acceptance vide letter dated 14/07/2009 and verification of Driving License by the Agra Transport Authority, Other documents and Medical Fitness Report Sh. Pardeep Kumar was admitted to training course in the fire fighting for the post of Fire Operator vide letter No.F.2/Estt/DFS/HQ/09/4769 dated 18/09/2004.
6. After completion of training at FSMA, Sh. Pardeep Kumar was appointed to the post Fire Operator vide letter No.F.2/DFS/2009/2938 dated 10/12/2009.
7. Later, on the basis of controversial reports received by this office, the matter was again inquired from Agra Transport Authority vide this office letter No.F2/Rectt./Admn./F.O./DFS/Part-I/2361 dated 03.09.2010.
8. The Agra Transport Authority informed finally vide letter No.273/D.L.-Satyapan (Fire Service)/2010 dated 15.11.2010 that Driving License No.3326/AG/06 dated 30/09/03 stated to have been issued in respect of Sh. Pardeep Kumar is fake and has not been issued by their Department.
In view of the above facts, Shri Pardeep Kuamr S/o Sh. Dalbir Singh D.O.B. 17/04/1984 is hereby directed to SHOW CAUSE as to why his services may not be terminated with immediate effect because his Driving License has been found fake.
His reply should reach this office within 15 days of the receipt of the Show Cause Notice otherwise it will be presumed that he has nothing to say in this regard and his services will be terminated with immediate effect under Rule 11 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
(A. K. SHARMA) DIRECTOR DELHI FIRE SERVICE II. Notice No.F2/Rectt./Admn/F.O./DFS/part File-I/15227 dated 30.08.2011.
NOTICE In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I,. A. K. Sharma, Director, Delhi Fire Service, Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi hereby give notice to Shri Pardeep Kumar Fire Operator 291/63 that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which this notice is served on, or, as the case may be, tendered to him.
(A. K. SHARMA) DIRECTOR DELHI FIRE SERVICE
8. The counsel for the applicant placed his reliance on many judgments to contend that the applicants case was fully covered by the ratio of those judgments in the sense that the impugned order was punitive in nature as the show cause notice, on the basis of which the impugned order was issued, revealed allegations which are stigmatic. We may refer to those judgments. Hon'ble Apex Court in the V. P. Ahujas case (supra), while setting aside the High Courts judgment held that termination of service during probation period if ex-facie stigmatic and punitive and no enquiry was held nor opportunity was given, the termination order was unsustainable. He also relied on the judgment of Honble Apex Court in Chandra Prakash Shahis case (supra) to state that applicants case was covered by the dicta laid in the said judgment. Facts of this case revealed that Honble Apex Court considered the issue of termination simplicitor vis-a-vis punitive in the back drop of the distinguishing features between motive and foundation. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in Pradeshik Armed Constabulary, after completion of his training, was placed on probation which he completed 05. 9. 1988 but a year later, on 19. 7. 1989, his services were terminated by a simple notice in terms of Rule 3 of the U.P. Temporary Government Servants (Termination of Service) Rules, 1975. The order of termination was challenged by the appellant before the U.P. Public Service Tribunal which, by its judgment dated 18-1-1993, allowed the claim and set aside the said termination order. Respondents approached the High Court through a Writ Petition which was allowed on 27. 11. 1997 and the judgment passed by the Tribunal was set aside. Being aggrieved, the appellant approached the Hon'ble Apex Court where it was contended that the order by which the services of the appellant were terminated, though innocuous apparently, was, in fact, punitive in nature as he could not have been removed from service without holding a regular departmental enquiry. It is further contended that the Courts including the Tribunal have full jurisdiction to go behind the order to find out whether the order of termination was simplicitor or punitive. In this context, the Apex Court examined the distinction between motive and foundation and held that "motive" is the moving power which implies action for a definite result, or to put it differently, "motive" is that which incites or stimulates a person to do an act. An order terminating the services of an employee is an act done by the employer. What is that factor which implied the employer to take this action? If it was the factor of general unsuitability of the employee for the post held by him, the action would be upheld in law. If, however, there were allegations of serious misconduct against the employee and a preliminary enquiry is held behind his back to ascertain the truth of those allegations and a termination order is passed thereafter, the order, having regard to other circumstances, would be founded on the allegations of misconduct which were found to be true in the preliminary enquiry. Applying these principles to the facts of the case, the Apex Court noticed that the appellant, who successfully completed his training and probation without any blemish was found involved in an incident. The quarrel was between two other Constables in which the appellant, to begin with, was not involved, but when the quarrel was joined by few more Constables on either side, then an enquiry was held to find out the involvement of the constables in that quarrel in which filthy language was also used. It was through this enquiry that appellant's involvement was found established. The termination was founded on the report of the preliminary enquiry as the employer had not held the preliminary enquiry to find out whether the appellant was suitable for further retention in service or not. In this situation, the order was held to be punitive in character as it was founded on the allegations of misconduct. The law laid in Chandra Prakash Shahs case (supra) clearly disclosed the misconduct of the appellant as the motive for termination which was found to be stigmatic. This misconduct was found to have been committed during the period of his employment. A careful perusal of two judgments of this Tribunal in Ms. Rominder Randhawas case (supra) and Dr. Aman Duas case (supra) the termination was set aside as the same was stigmatic due to the alleged misconduct committed in the course of employment and terminated without holding enquiry. All these judgments are distinguishable from the facts of the present case as the applicants termination was not triggered by any misconduct during his service as Fire Operator.
9. On the contrary, the counsel for the respondent would cite the orders passed by us in Sh. Amar Singh Parihars case (supra). Shri Amar Singh Parihar challenged the order dated 30.10.2007 whereby his temporary services were terminated under proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, and another OM dated 3.01.2007 wherein he was directed to submit his explanation to the appointing authority on deliberate misrepresentation and suppression of six sets of facts from the Selection and Appointing Authorities. The termination order was alleged to be stigmatic and punitive as the same was based on allegations referred to in the OM dated 3.01.2007 and relied on the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in Dipti Prakash Banerjee Versus Satendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Science (1999 SCC (L&S) 596), stating that the termination containing stigma cannot be passed without holding inquiry but by lifting the veil behind the order, the Tribunal would find the termination order as stigmatic. While dismissing the OA we held that such termination order was neither stigmatic nor punitive, as the termination was based on non-disclosure of pre-employment information. Our order in Amar Singh Parihars case (supra) is extracted below:
The termination order passed by the Respondents under the Proviso to sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 is not based on the misconduct committed by the Applicant during his service with the Respondents. On the other hand, non disclosure of certain information at the time of submitting Application and Attestation Forms has been found to be relevant for the purpose of suitability or otherwise of the Applicants selection for the post. The information which were called for by the Respondents relate to his pre employment details and had those been otherwise disclosed, he would have been otherwise found unsuitable for the job. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the contention of stigmatic nature of the termination order does not stand to reason as the termination order has been issued not on any misconduct committed by the Applicant during his service period with the Respondents. As the termination order is based on his pre-employment information not disclosed before selection, the question of lifting the veil behind the termination order does not arise.
10. We note that there is marked distinction between the misconduct committed during the service and the deliberate misrepresentation in the form of furnishing fake/forged documents to secure employment. The former action attracts the provisions of discipline and appeal rules and gets covered under the Article 311 of the Constitution irrespective of the fact whether such employee is in regular/adhoc/temporary service and simple termination of the without conducting proper enquiry under the relevant rules is punitive and stigmatic. On the other hand, in the latter case where employment is secured through fraudulent/deceitful means, a simple termination of such an employee will not be stigmatic, as the employees pre employment action does not attract the relevant discipline and rules. The cases under our consideration in the instant OAs belong to the latter category as it is admitted fact that the applicants pre employment information given to the 2nd and 3rd respondent about their respective HMV driving licenses are the basis for the issue of simple and innocuous termination orders against them. As such, on the analogy of the decision taken by us in Amar Singh Parihars case (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order dated 30.08.2011 cannot be treated to be stigmatic / punitive.
11. The second issue is that the termination order is violative of the principles of natural justice. It is trite law that the order canceling appointment of a person in Government service on the ground that the said selected person was not even qualified nor was otherwise eligible for the post, termination of temporary service in such circumstances would not attract the principles of natural justice. We may refer to the following judgments in this context.
12. While dismissing the Appeal (Civil) 4507-4508 of 2005 on 16-1-2006 in Mohd. Sartaj and Another Versus State of U.P.and Others [2006-2- SCC-315], the Honourable Apex Court considered the issue of the cancellation of appointment of the appellants to the post of Urdu Teacher on the ground that minimum qualification prescribed under Rule 8 of U.P. Basic (Teachers) Services Rules, 1981 was not fulfilled on the date of recruitment. The said cancellation order has been issued within very short span of time giving no probability for any legitimate expectation to the appellants regarding continuation of their services. It was held that no prejudice had been caused to the appellants by not serving notice or giving hearing before the order of cancellation was issued. Inter alia Honourable Supreme Court has scanned its judgments to identify the circumstances in which the principles of natural justice would be futile exercise being mere technical formality.Relevant judgments are viz, S.L. Kapoor versus Jagmohan and Ors (1980 (4) S.C.C. 379); State of M.P. & Ors. versus Shyama Pardi & Ors. [1996 (7) S.C.C. 118]; M.C. Mehta versus Union of India (1999 (6) S.C.C. 237); Aligarh Muslim University versus Mansoor Ali Khan [A.I.R. 2000 S.C. 2783]; Viveka Nand Sethi versus Chairman, J&K Bank Ltd. and Others [(2005) 5 SCC 337]; and State of U.P. vs. Neeraj Awasthi & Others, [JT 2006 (1) SC 19], In all these cases Honble Apex Court has drawn a clear and unambiguous distinction between the initial disqualification for appointment will not attract the principle of natural justice, whereas the irregularities and misconduct committed in the course of employment and application of the principle of natural justice.
13. In the background of the above well settled position in law on the issue, we note that impugned order in the present case is a simple order of termination under CCS (TS) Rules where the principles of natural justice through a detailed enquiry and granting opportunity of personal hearing in the instant matter is not required.
14. The above analysis leads us to the next issue, whether the non-supply of reports referred to in the show cause notice dated 04.5.2011 issued to the applicant has prejudiced him? We have given our careful consideration and have thoughtfully analysed two issues in the preceding paragraphs. The services of the applicant have been terminated under Rule 5 (1) of Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which reads as follows:-
(1) (a) The services of a temporary Government servant shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government servant to the Appointing Authority or by the Appointing Authority to the Government servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month:
Provided that the service of any such Government servant may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Government servant shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month.
15. A plain reading of the said Rule reveals that no show-cause notice is necessary for terminating the services there under, as has been given in the present case. Nor any reasons are required to be mentioned in the termination order passed under the said Rule. The Rule gives a right both to the Government servant as well as the appointing authority to terminate the services at any time by giving one months notice. A proviso to Rule 5 (1) empowers the appointing authority to terminate the services of Government servant forthwith whereupon the Government servant will be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of the notice at the same rate at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his services or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Reference in this regard may be made to the Govt. of India, M.H.A., O.M. No.39/14/56-Ests. (A) Dated 22.06.1956 providing that when case is taken under Rule 5 to terminate the services of a temporary employee, the order of termination, which should be passed by the appointing authority, should not mention the reasons for such termination. As a matter of fact, standard pro forma for termination of service under Rule 5 have been prescribed through issuance of administrative instructions. Accordingly, where the services of the temporary Government servants are sought to be terminated giving one months notice in terms of Rule 5 (1), the order of termination should be in Form I as follows:-
FORM I Notice of termination of service issued under Rule 5(1)of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 In pursuance of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, I, . (name and designation) hereby give notice to Shri/Shrimathi/Kumari.that his/her services shall stand .terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month on which this notice is served on or as the case may be, tendered to him/her.
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents could have proceeded against the applicants in one of the following three manners, namely, (1) to proceed against him in regular departmental inquiry in case his services are proposed to be terminated for having committed a misconduct rendering him unsuitable in retention in service; (2) to cancel the applicants appointment on the ground of disqualification under the terms and conditions of employment; and (3) under the Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 in case of temporary servant. The respondents have preferred to proceed with the 3rd option under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 but in the process have committed an infirmity of non-supply of reports referred to in the show cause notice issued to the applicant which has vitiated their action in law.
17. The show cause notice refers to two divergent reports, one such information is dated 21.01.2009 indicates authenticity of the driving license whereas the letter dated 15.11.2010 discloses the contrary information i.e. the driving license has been found to be fake and forged. Admittedly, the applicant has not been supplied both letters of 21.01.2009 and 15.11.2010. Surely, the non supply of the copies of these two letters/documents has prejudiced the applicant, so much so he has been disadvantaged to defend himself properly. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that they should have been given both the letters, more specifically, the letter dated 15.11.2010 received from the concerned Authority and on receipt of their response apt decision could have been taken. The very fact that the respondents have not given the applicants a copy of the confidential letter dated 15-11-2010 to show their driving licenses as fake ones has, of course, denied them the opportunity in the sense they have stated that driving license copies were earlier authenticated by the Agra Transport Authority. Both cannot be correct, one of those two will surely be correct. Then, which one is correct can be properly decided by the third respondent only if the applicant can be supplied with both information and copies of relevant letters / documents, receive the response to decide the controversy. To the extent of non supply of reports referred to in the show cause notice issued to the applicant has prejudiced him. The applicant succeeds in this respect only.
18. For the reasons stated above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders in terminating the temporary service of the applicants are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants forthwith. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to place them under suspension till they take decision in the matter after providing them the copies of all documents referred to in the show cause notice and more specifically the confidential report dated 15-11-2010, and after getting the reply from the applicants the competent authority is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order in each case. If the applicants feel aggrieved by such decision of the respondents, it will be open for them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings as and when such occasion arises and as may be advised.
19. Accordingly, in terms of the above orders, directions and observations, all the Original Applications (OA Nos.3302/2011, 3310/2011, 3336/2011, 3337/2011, 3338/2011, 3339/2011, 3340/2011, 3341/2011, 3342/2011, 3343/2011, 3344/2011, 3345/2011, 3346/2011, 3347/2011, 3348/2011, 3349/2011, 3350/2011, 3351/2011, 3352/2011, 3353/2011, 3354/2011, 3355/2011, 3356/2011, 3357/2011, 3358/2011, 3376/2011, 3386/2011, 3411/2011, 3413/2011, 3414/2011 and OA No.3415/2011) are disposed of, leaving the respective parties to bear their own costs.
(Dr. Ramesh Chandra Panda) (V. K. Bali)
Member (A) Chairman
/pj/