Central Administrative Tribunal - Bangalore
Kariyappa G vs M/O Defence on 28 March, 2024
1
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
BANGALORE BENCH, BENGALURU
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.170/0028/2022
DATED THIS THE 28th DAY OF MARCH, 2024
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE S. SUJATHA, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
Kariyappa G,
S/o Gavirangappa,
Aged 34 years,
Lower Division Clerk (Terminated),
515 Army Base Workshop,
R/a No. D-135,
North 3rd Lane, ITI Colony,
Doorvaninagar, Bangalore-560 016
Permanent resident of
Avaragere, Davanegere Taluk & Distt.
PIN 577 003 ...Applicant.
(By Advocate Shri B.S. Venkatesh Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
Secretary to Government,
Ministry of Defence,
DHQ PO,
New Delhi-110 011.
2. Director General of EME (Civ)
Master General of Ordnance Branch,
IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Army),
Delhi Cantt.-110 010
3. The Commandant and Managing Director,
515 Army Base Workshop,
Ulsoor, Bangalore-560 008.
2
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
4. Commander,
Base Workshop Group,
C/o 56 APO,
Meerut Cantt. (UP)-900 468. ...Respondents
(By Shri N. Amaresh, Sr. Panel Counsel)
O R D E R (ORAL)
PER: RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA, MEMBER (A)
1. The applicant has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs:
a) To quash and set aside the impugned termination order bearing No.203/14693275L/Est (NIP) dated 16.12.2021 (Annexure-A1) passed by the 3rd Respondent, vide which, the services of the applicant have been terminated forthwith, with the direction that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the period of termination of his service.
b) To issue a consequential direction to the 3rd Respondent to take back the applicant to duty with full back wages and other consequential benefits.
c) Grant such other relief/s as this Tribunal deems fit to grant to the applicant in the circumstances of the case.3
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
2. The facts of the case as averred by the applicant in his pleadings, are as follows:
a) The applicant was appointed as Lower Division Clerk through an offer of appointment dated 08.01.2018. As per the terms of appointment at para 6, it was specified that on satisfactory completion of the probationary period the applicant will be retained in service as Lower Division Clerk (LDC). The applicant was posted and was working in P&PC Department from February 2018. He worked for about 1 year 8 months smoothly.
b) In October 2019, Lt. Col. Niladri Ray was posted to the P&PC Department and immediately trouble began to the applicant. Lt Col.
Ray would always target the applicant for reasons best known to him and was ill-treating the applicant because of the fact that the applicant belonged to Scheduled Tribe. Since the applicant was under
probationary period, he withstood all the insults as he did not want to give room for any serious consequences.
c) On 16.11.2019, Lt. Col. Ray lodged a complaint against the applicant.
A preliminary inquiry was held on 10.12.2019 and thereafter a show cause notice was issued on 10.02.2020. The applicant submitted his reply on 21.02.2020. On 08.09.2020, a Memorandum was issued to the applicant proposing to conduct enquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The applicant submitted his defence statement on 17.09.2020. The defence statement was not accepted and a regular 4 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench inquiry was held. The Inquiry report submitted by the IO was forwarded to the applicant on 16.08.2021 for information. The report found "all these actions of the applicant amount to misconduct and misbehaviour of unbecoming a government servant". On 07.10.2021, Establishment Officer served the penalty order dated 06.10.2021. The disciplinary authority imposed the penalty of "reduction to lower stage of pay by one stage from Rs.21700/- to Rs.21000/- for a period of one year with effect from 06.10.2021 with further direction that he will not earn increment of pay during the said period and reduction will not have effect on postponing his future increment of pay".
d) Being aggrieved the applicant submitted his appeal to the 4th Respondent on 30.10.2021.
e) The probation of the applicant was being extended and the second extension was set to expire on 16.01.2022. The applicant had no alternative than to submit a complaint to the SC/ST Cell. Cumulatively even when the appeal of the applicant was pending before the Appellate Authority, the 3rd Respondent issued the impugned termination order dated 16.12.2021 purporting to be under Rule 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules 1965 terminating the applicant.
f) The applicant has been punished on 06.10.2021 after holding an inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules and the appeal of the applicant against the imposition of penalty is pending before the Appellate Authority. At this stage, the termination order purported to 5 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench be passed under Temporary Service Rules cannot be held to be one of termination simpliciter. The termination order is as a measure of penalty and it casts a stigma and amounts to a double jeopardy.
g) Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Deepti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 983 observed in the head notes as under:
"(A) Constitution of India, Article 14 - Probationer - Termination during probation - Whether an order of termination of a probationer is punitive or not depends upon whether the alleged cause of termination are the motive or foundation of the order - Where the findings arrived at in an inquiry conducted at the back of an employee without holding regular enquiry are the basis of simple order of termination, such allegations and findings are to be treated as foundation of the order and the order is vitiated. (B) Constitution of India, Article 14 - Probation - Stigma -
Termination during probation - Whether the reasons would cast a stigma and affect the future career of the employee in getting employment depends on the facts and circumstances of each case and the language or words employed in the order of termination of the probationer - If it leads a person to believe that there was something wrong with the employee as regards his conduct or character, it will certainly cast a stigma - It is not necessary that words amounting to 6 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench stigma must be contained in the order of termination itself but may be contained in the enclosures, documents or proceedings referred to therein - Findings of preparation of false bills and misbehaviour with women based on a formal enquiry are stigmatic.
(C) Constitution of India, Article 14 - Probationer - Natural justice - Stigmatic order of termination of probationer based on formal enquiry by show cause notice without holding regular enquiry into the allegations of misconduct - Order held vitiated - Findings arrived at by such formal Committee cannot be used for terminating the services of a probationer."
h) In the present case, the respondents have initiated disciplinary proceedings under Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) and have imposed penalty on the applicant. In these circumstances, the termination order cannot be treated as the one passed simpliciter and it has cast stigma and, therefore, the impugned termination order is liable to be quashed.
i) The impugned termination is not sustainable because it amounts to double jeopardy. Firstly the applicant has been imposed the penalty of reduction in pay and during the pendency of the appeal the Respondent No.3 has issued the impugned termination.
j) Just before the penalty order was passed, the probationary period of the applicant was extended on 27.09.2021 extending the period of probation upto17.01.2022. The applicant joined the post of LDC on 18.01.2018, the maximum period of probation of four years would 7 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench expire on 17.01.2022. Just a month before the expiry of maximum period of probation, the 3rd Respondent has issued the impugned termination order.
3. The respondents have filed their written statement wherein they have averred as follows:
a) Shri Kariyappa G, was appointed as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) under the reserved quota on 17.01.2018. Shri Kariyappa G. was on probation for a period of two years from 17 .01.2018 to 16 .01.2020.
During the period of probation, he had not improved his performance in the trade. Still, he was given a chance and the probation was extended for a further period of one year from 17.01.2020 to 16.01.2021 and again for a further period of one year from17.01.2021 to 16.01.2022.
b) During the probationary period, Shri Kariyappa G was provided with multiple opportunities in terms of changed work environment & an opportunity to work under different Initiating Officers (four) in various departments inside 515 Army Base Workshop for unbiased assessment as well as guidance for improving his performance. He was finally administratively terminated from service on 16 Dec 2021 solely on the basis of his unsatisfactory Probationer's Assessment Reports and Performance Improvement Advisories. Despite the best efforts of this office through its functionaries at all levels and their effort and time devoted over an extended period of time, the Applicant could not be 8 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench encouraged enough to even achieve the satisfactory level of performance in the establishment.
c) The administrative termination of the Applicant was solely based on scrutiny of Probationary Assessment Reports and Performance Improvement Advisories of the individual after multiple opportunities to the Applicant in terms of changed work environment and different reporting officers for unbiased guidance and assessment over the maximum period of probation extended possible.
d) The Applicant's misconduct was enquired into and culminated in the award of penalty for that specific instant of misconduct post proper disciplinary proceedings, as per extant rules. The aforesaid penalty was appealed under provisions of CCS (Conduct) Rules 1965 and the penalty imposed was confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 16.04.2022. This correction in conduct was desirable towards facilitating and maintaining discipline in the establishment and was without any prejudice whatsoever to the lack of performance or unsatisfactory performance of the Applicant.
e) Various advisories were given to the Applicant on account of his unsatisfactory performance at various specific instances during his service. Opportunities were given to the Applicant in terms of change of work environment and different reporting officers for an unbiased assessment as well as guidance for improving his performance. Full opportunity was accorded to the Applicant with the hope that the 9 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Applicant shall make due efforts to improve through maximum extension of probation.
f) The administrative termination of the Applicant was done only after proper scrutiny of his entire memo of service through probationary assessment reports and Performance Improvement Advisories at the end of the maximum extended probation period due to unsatisfactory performance and inability to improve despite change in working environment, change in reporting officers for guidance and assessment to obviate any kind of biases whatsoever.
g) EME Records vide their letter dated 04.12.2021 intimated that "on perusal of assessment report in respect of Shri Kariyappa G, it is found that the individual is not meeting the criteria for confirmation" and advised 515 Army Base Workshop to take action as per DoP&T O.M. dated 21.07.2014. Accordingly, the service of LDC, Shri Kariyappa G was administratively terminated on 16.12.2022 based on the Probationers Assessment Report initiated by the different Assessing/Recording Officers in different sections of 515 Army Base Workshop on the performance of his trade work during the probationary period and Performance Improvement Advisories issued to the applicant.
h) The following Hon'ble Supreme Court Orders pertaining to this case are brought forth before the Tribunal: -
10
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
(a) A probationer whose terms of service provided that it could be terminated without any notice and without any cause being assigned could not claim the protection of Article 311 (2) (See Shri RC Banerjee Vs Union of India (1964) 2 SCR 135 - (AIR 1963 SC1552)).
(b) A preliminary inquiry to satisfy that there was reason to dispense with the services of a temporary employee has been held not to attract Article 311 (See Shri Champaklal G Shah Vs Union of India (1964) 5 SCR 190 - (AIR 1964 SC 1834)).
(c) On the other hand, a statement in the order of termination that the temporary servant is undesirable has been held to impart an element of punishment (See Shri Jagadish Mitter Vs Union of India AIR 1964 SC 499).
(d) If the facts & circumstances of the case indicate that the substance of the order is that the termination is by way of punishment then a probationer is entitled to attract Article 311. The substance of the order and not form of the order would be decisive (See Shri KH Phadnis Vs State of Maharashtra (1971) Supp SCR 118 - (AIR 1971 SC 998)).
(e) "When an allegation is made by the employee assailing the order of termination as one based on misconduct though couched in innocuous terms, it is incumbent on the court to lift the veil and to see the real circumstances as well as on the basis and foundation of order complained of. In other words, the Court in such a case, will 11 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench lift the veil and will see whether the order was made on the grounds of misconduct, inefficiency or not (See Shri Jarnail Singh Vs State of Punjab (1987) SCR 1022 in the Supreme Court)."
(f) Relied up on decisions of Radhey Shayam Gupta Vs U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd., (1999 ) 2 SCC 21 and Devendra Joshi Vs Union of India (2011) SCC Online Utt 26) and several other judgments of the supreme Court including Chanpaklal Chimanlal Shah Vs UOl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in a recent Judgment reported in (2018) 15 SCC 73 (Director, Aryabhatta Research Institute of Observational Sciences & An Vs Devendra Joshi &Ors) was pleased to hold that "Termination at the end of probation period without imputing any misconduct in termination order- no stigma attached and thus termination order was not punitive"."
i) The performance of the applicant has been assessed through the probationary assessment reports which have been scrutinised periodically by a Departmental Screening Committee (DSC). The DSC has not recommended lifting of his probation and instructed continuous extension of his probationary period till the maximum possible limit of four years to give a chance to the Applicant to improve his performance. Final decision to administratively terminate the applicant has been taken by the Competent Authority i.e. the Appointing Authority after careful consideration on file of the entire memo of 12 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench service from 17.01.2018 to 16.01.2022 which include the Probationary Assessment Reports for the period 17.01.2018 to 16.01.2022 and the various Performance Improvement Advisories issued to the Applicant during this period Annexures R-7 to R-14.
j) The applicant was made to serve under four different assessing officers and three different reviewing officers in different sections of 515 Army Base Workshop. He was provided the maximum possible period of probation. These details clearly bring out the highly unsatisfactory performance of the Applicant during the probationary period along with many instances of absence without permission/prior intimation, avoiding responsibilities, lackadaisical attitude, breach of trust and security in which he was found suppressing official information/correspondences without bringing it to the knowledge of the higher officer, procedural violations in handling official documents for which detailed Performance Improvement Advisories and letters have been issued. The Applicant has failed to improve his performance inspite of issuing detailed Performance Improvement Advisories and instances of his lack of performance had only increased during the period of his probation which ultimately resulted in the appointing authority carefully scrutinising the probationary assessment reports and performance improvement advisories on file before issuing the impugned administrative termination of the Applicant, on 16.12.2021.
k) In the probationary assessment report for the period 17.01.2020 to 16.01.2021, three qualities were endorsed where the applicant was 13 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench found partially meeting the requirement of the job. It has also been endorsed by the Assessing Officer that the applicant is an average Lower Division Clerk who requires supervision to perform duty. The Reviewing Officer has endorsed that he agrees with the remarks of the Initiating Officer. The probationary assessment reports for the period 17.01.2020 to 16.01.2021 were scrutinised by a Departmental Screening Committee held in March 2021 in which his probation was not confirmed but his probationary period was deferred by six months from 17.01.2021 to 16.07.2021 vide EME Records letters dated 12.08.2021 and 09.10.2021 based on remarks of the Initiating Officer.
l) During this period of probation, the applicant was given two performance improvement advisories and one representation was made by Deputy General Manager Simulator Manufacturing Division to the General Manager Administration to change the Applicant. The first performance improvement advisory was issued on 02 Feb 2021 wherein it was endorsed that in the Department Screening Committee held in November 2020 it was decided to extend the Applicants probation to give opportunity to enhance his performance. The second performance improvement advisory was issued on 12.03.2021 wherein it was endorsed: -
"It is found that on 03 Mar 21 you have not reported to duty and was found absent. Your absence has not been informed to your section-in-charge or any competent authority. The absence period 14 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench was from 03 Mar 21 to 10 Mar 21 (eight days). This has been seriously viewed by the undersigned (Deputy General Manager Simulator Manufacturing Division). As an employee of Govt of India (MoD) this act is not warranted. You are hereby advised not to be repeat in future failing which necessary disciplinary action will be initiate against you."
m) In the probationary assessment report for the period 17.01.2021 to 16.07.2021 fourteen qualities were endorsed where the applicant was found partially meeting the requirement of the job and seven qualities were endorsed where the applicant was found to not meet the requirement of the job. It has also been endorsed by the Assessing Officer that the applicant partially fulfils the mandated job and has been counselled verbally and by writing to improve his performance. The applicant requires supervision in all aspects of his trade work. The applicant has been enquired on his conduct with his seniors and hence has to improve his overall conduct and work towards correcting himself under the guidance of co-employees and seniors.
n) The applicant continued to be posted in the Simulator Manufacturing Department during the third and final extended period of probation from 17.07.2021 till 16.01.2022. During this period of probation, the applicant was given two Performance Improvement Advisories and one show cause notice. The first performance improvement advisory was issued on 26.07.2021 wherein it was informed that in the 15 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench Department Screening Committee held in March 2021 the Applicant's probation period has been further deferred. The applicant was advised to improve his performance. The second performance improvement advisory was issued on 27.09.2021, wherein it was informed that the performance of the Applicant has not been such so as to justify his confirmation.
o) A Show Cause Notice was issued against the Applicant on 18.11.2021 in which it was informed: -
"It has been noticed that you (Applicant) are habitually irregular and absent from duty without written permission, thereby exhibiting lackadaisical attitude and disobedience of existing orders. During the period 01 October 2021 to 18 November 2021 being a probationer you have absent from duty without prior permission/sanction for a period of 11 days during October 2021 and 08 days during November 2021. Inspite of repeated warning and counselling there is no improvement in your behaviour and your conduct till date has been viewed seriously by the undersigned (Officiating General Manager Administration) under violation of Good Order and Discipline expected from a Government employee."
p) The probationary assessment reports of the Applicant for the six months from 17.07.2021 till 16.01.2022 were scrutinised by a Departmental Screening Committee held in December 2021 in which 16 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench the following was endorsed "Not Yet Fit (NYF) no further extension of probation can be granted to the individual".
q) The applicant was provided the maximum permissible probationary period of four years and it was ensured that he works under different officers and in different sections during these four years to ensure absolutely unbiased and totally fair assessment and he was in fact given timely verbal and written performance improvement advisories to improve his performance which ultimately resulted in his probation not being confirmed.
4. In his rejoinder to the reply statement, the applicant has averred as follows:-
a) It is true that the respondents extended the probationary period but the same was done arbitrarily and with an intention to harass a sincere employee. The applicant had discharged his work with sincerity and honesty. But for reasons unexplained the respondents have extended the probationary period without any basis at the instance of Lt Col Niladri Roy, imposed punishment and during the currency of punishment he was sent out under Rule 5 of Temporary Service Rules.
b) The case of the applicant is that he has been removed as a punishment and not under Rule 5 of TS Rules. The APARs of the applicant clearly show that the applicant was not at a level which compels removal from service. The applicant humbly submits none of these documents were served on him to seek his response. In the absence of the same, unilateral assessment without reply is arbitrary action. 17
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
c) The applicant was posted to Simulator Manufacturing Department on 31.10.2020 as stated in para 17 of the reply statement. But the allegations that he did not report to duty and was found absent are all false and incorrect. The applicant took leave for 8 days as he was not well. He had taken medical leave and submitted the application to his officer to forward the same to Establishment Section.
d) CCS (CCA) Rules clearly specify that the respondents cannot terminate the services of the applicant by adopting illegal means. At the cost of repetition, the applicant submits that termination under Rule 5 of TS Rules is termination simpliciter and it cannot be used to penalize any employee.
5. In their additional reply to the rejoinder, the respondents have submitted as follows:-
a) The probation of the applicant was extended for a period of one year from 17.01.2020 to 16.01.2021 by the Departmental Screening Committee held during November 2020 to give opportunity to the applicant to improve his performance. The probation was further deferred vide EME Records letter No. 1594/DSC Mar 2021/Gp 'C'/Prob/CA-3 dated 14.07.2021.
b) The applicant was given sufficient opportunity by issuance of written notices, which are attached as Annexures R-13 & R14 to improve his performance during the period of probation/extended probation period. 18
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench The applicant was specifically informed to improve his performance, failing which he is likely to be terminated from service.
c) The applicant was posted to four different sections and worked under different Officers within the office of 515 Army Base Workshop during the probation period. The Assessment reports initiated for the applicant were by different reporting officers as per the details given below:-
17.01.2018 to 16.01.2019 Col Rajesh Kumar, DGM, P&PC 17.01.2019 to 16.01.2020 Maj Himika Kalyani, DGM, P &PC 17.01.2020 to 16.01.2021 Shri James Joseph, CASO 17.01.2021 to 16.01.2022 Lt Col Vijay Manikandan DGM (SMD)
d) Service of Shri G. Kariyappa were terminated based on the Assessment reports of the applicant initiated by these four different officers in different sections.
e) The applicant was awarded punishment of reduction to lower stage of pay by one stage from Rs 21700/- to Rs 21100/- in the pay level 2 of revised pay matrix for a period of one year w.e.f., 06.10.2021, which was based on the Charge Memorandum issued under Rule 14 of CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 for misbehaviour by using threatening language against Lieutenant Colonel Niladri Roy, Deputy General Manager, (PSPC) of 515 Army Base Workshop. It is reiterated that this punishment was awarded for misbehaviour, whereas termination of his service under Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules was for lack of performance during his probation period. 19
OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench
6. Heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the pleadings made by them.
7. In the present case, the applicant has challenged the order dated 16.12.2021 vide which his services have been terminated under the provisions of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules 1965. The applicant had been initially appointed as Lower Division Clerk on 17.01.2018. As per the terms of his appointment order, his appointment was on purely temporary basis. He was put on probation for a period of 02 years from the date of his appointment. His conditions of service specifically provided that if his services were not found satisfactory during the period of his probation, his services were liable for termination without notice under provisions of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rule 1965. After satisfactory completion of the probationary period he could be retained in service as "Lower Division Clerk" and his services were liable for termination on rendition of one month's notice from either side.
8. His period of probation would have normally expired on 16.01.2020.
However, based upon his assessment reports and advisories issued to him from time to time, the respondents decided to extend his probation for one more year upto 16.01.2021. Subsequently, his probation was again extended by one more year upto 16.01.2022.
9. As per the records produced by the respondents, the applicant had been issued a number of advisories indicating to him that his performance was not upto the mark. Copies of such performance improvement advisories 20 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench have been produced by the respondents in their additional reply as Annexures -R7, R8, R9, R10, R11, R12, R13, R14, R23 & R25. He had also been issued a show cause notice on 18.11.2021 to explain his absence from duty without seeking prior permission/sanction for the period between 01.10.2021 to 17.11.2021.
10. The contention of the applicant that he was performing his duties to the complete satisfaction of the respondents, cannot be countenanced keeping these advisories in view. He has performed under control of four different officers in this period who have separately given assessment reports regarding his performance. A perusal of these assessment reports also indicates that the applicant partially met the requirements of the job on most parameters and these reports indicated an average or below average performance.
11. The applicant has contended that he was being specifically harassed by one Officer namely Lt. Col Niladri Ray. The applicant has further alleged that he has been imposed a punishment as well as has suffered termination of his services, consequent to this harassment. His specific contention is that his termination cannot be held to be a termination simpliciter but is an additional penalty imposed on him in addition to the penalty already imposed on him for his alleged misconduct against Lt. Col Niladri Ray.
12. The documents submitted by the respondents indicate that the applicant has been punished for his alleged misconduct separately, for which a penalty of reduction to lower stage by one stage for a period of one year has been 21 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench imposed on him. This penalty has also been confirmed by the Appellate Authority on 16.4.2022. However, the reason for the termination of his services is due to the adverse reports by his assessing officers as well as the advisories issued to him during his probation period. These reports and advisories are not connected with his alleged misconduct against Lt. Col Niladri Ray.
13. The contention of the applicant that he has been terminated from services due to the alleged misconduct does not carry weight and is difficult to accept, keeping in view the fact that his performance has been adversely noted on various occasions during his entire probationary period.
14. A probationer who is not making satisfactory progress or who shows himself to be inadequate for the service in any way is required to be informed of his shortcomings well before the expiry of the original probationary period so that he can make special efforts at self-improvement. Issuance of the advisories to the applicant confirm that this has been done by the respondents repeatedly.
15. Despite repeated advisories, the applicant was found lacking in making satisfactory progress. Under the Rules, if it appears to the Appointing Authority, at any time, during or at the end of the period of probation that a Government servant has not made sufficient use of his opportunities or is not making satisfactory progress, the Appointing Authority may revert him to the post held substantively by him immediately preceding his 22 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench appointment, provided he hold a lien thereon or in other cases may discharge or terminate him from service.
16. The Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 have the following provisions relating to termination of temporary service:-
5. Termination of temporary service.
(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 services 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
17. The termination order issued by the respondents in the present case is under the proviso below rule 5(1)(b) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rule 1965. As provided under these rules, the services of the applicant have been terminated forthwith, with the direction that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of one month at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the period of termination of his service. There is no reason specifically indicated in the order to show that his services were terminated 23 OA.No.170/28/2022/CAT/Bangalore Bench due to any penalty imposed on him. His termination order should be considered as a termination simpliciter without any stigma.
18. Keeping the above points in view, the present OA lacks merit and deserves to be dismissed.
19. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed.
20. However, there shall be no orders so as to costs.
(RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA) (JUSTICE S. SUJATHA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
/hy/