Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh

Renu Verma vs Nvs on 2 February, 2026

                                                                  ​1​            ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​


                                  ​CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL​
                                          ​CHANDIGARH BENCH​
                                                  ​O.A.No.060/504/2025​
                                      ​Chandigarh, Order Reserved: 14.11.2025​
                                                         ​Pronounced: 02.02.2026​

                        ​ ORAM:​
                        C
                         ​HON'BLE MR. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J)​
                            ​HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A)​

​RENU​ ​VERMA,​ ​W/o​ ​Late​ ​Sh.​ ​Sahdev​ ​Singh,​ ​aged​ ​about​ ​37​ ​years,​ ​We​ ​Residential​ ​Quarters,​ ​Jawahar​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya,​ ​Village​ ​Rakoli,​ ​P.O.​ ​Jhingran​ ​Kalan-l40​ ​103,​ ​District​ ​S.A.S.​ ​Nagar--​ ​(Punjab).​ ​ex-Junior​ ​Secretariat Assislam, Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Mohali (Punjab).​ ​...Applicant​ ​(By Advocate: Mr. Jaswinder Singh)​ ​VERSUS​ ​1.​ ​Union​ ​of​ ​India,​ ​through​ ​its​ ​Secretary,​ ​Dept.​ ​of​ ​School​ ​Education,​ ​Ministry of Education, Shastri Bhawan, New Delhi-110 001.​ ​2.​ ​The​ ​Commissioner,​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya​ ​Samiti,​ ​8-1​ ​5,​ ​Institutional​ ​Area, Sector 62, Noida--201307 (Uttar Pradesh).​ ​3.​ ​The​ ​Deputy​ ​Commissioner,​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya​ ​Samiti,​ ​Chandigarh​ ​Region, Bay No. 26-27 Sector 31-A, Chandigarh- 160 031.​ ​4.​​Capt.​​Tina​​Dhir​​(Retired),​​Deputy​​Commissioner,​​Navodaya​​Vidyalaya​ ​Samiti,​ ​Chandigarh​ ​Region,​ ​Bay​ ​No.​ ​26-27​ ​Sector​ ​31-A,​ ​Chandigarh-​ ​160 031.​ ​5.​ ​The​ ​Assistant​ ​Commissioner​ ​cum​ ​Cluster-In-Charge,​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya​ ​Samiti,​ ​Chandigarh​ ​Region,​ ​Bay​ ​No.​ ​26-27​ ​Sector​ ​31-A,​ ​Chandigarh-- 160 031.​ ​6.​ ​The​ ​Principal,​ ​PM​ ​Shri​ ​School,​ ​Jawahar​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya,​ ​Amritsar-l, Awan, Ramdas--143 603, Amritsar (Punjab).​ ​7.​ ​The​ ​Principal,​ ​PM​ ​Shri​ ​School,​ ​Jawahar​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya,​ ​Village​ ​Rakoli, P.O. Jhingran Kalan--140 103, District S.A.S. Nagar-- (Punjab).​ ​...Respondents​ ​(By​ ​Advocate:​ ​Mr.​ ​H.S.​ ​Gill​ ​for​ ​R-1,​ ​Mr.​ ​Barjesh​ ​Mittal​ ​for​ ​R-2​ ​to​ ​7,​ ​Dr. Nandoo Yadav for proposed R-8 in MA No. 1735/2025)​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​2​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​ R D E R​ O ​Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J):​ ​1.​ ​The​ ​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​filed​ ​under​ ​Section​ ​19​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Administrative​ ​Tribunals​ ​Act,​ ​1985​ ​is​ ​directed​ ​against​ ​Order​ ​No.​ ​F.5-198/JSA/NVS/CR/EStt.(NT)/2024/447-52​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​(Annexure​​A-1),​​issued​​by​​Respondent​​No.​​5,​​vide​​which​​the​​services​​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​have​ ​been​ ​terminated.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​prays​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​be​ ​quashed​ ​and​ ​set​ ​aside,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​be​ ​reinstated​ ​in​ ​service​ ​with​ ​wages​ ​and​ ​consequential​ ​benefits​ ​w.e.f.​​date​ ​of termination.​ ​2.​ ​Facts​​of​​the​​case​​in​​brief​​are​​as​​follows.​​The​​applicant,​​Smt.​​Renu​ ​Verma,​​is​​a​​widow,​​a​​single​​mother,​​and​​belongs​​to​​the​​Scheduled​​Caste​ ​category.​ ​Her​ ​husband,​ ​Late​ ​Sh.​ ​Sahdev​ ​Singh,​ ​was​ ​an​ ​employee​ ​of​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya​ ​Samiti​ ​(NVS)​ ​and​ ​died​ ​while​ ​in​ ​service.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​offered​ ​appointment​ ​on​ ​compassionate​ ​grounds​ ​to​ ​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​Junior​ ​Secretariat​ ​Assistant​ ​(JSA)​ ​under​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya​ ​Samiti​​vide​​offer​​of​​appointment​​dated​​14.06.2024​​issued​​by​​the​​Deputy​ ​Commissioner,​ ​NVS,​ ​Regional​ ​Office​ ​Chandigarh,​ ​who​ ​acted​ ​as​ ​the​ ​appointing​ ​authority​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-2).​ ​The​ ​offer​ ​letter​ ​placed​ ​the​ ​applicant​​in​​Pay​​Level-2​​(₹19,900-63,200)​​under​​the​​CCS​​(Revised​​Pay)​ ​Rules,​ ​2016,​ ​indicating​ ​a​ ​substantive​ ​appointment​ ​subject​ ​to​​probation​ ​and training, and not a purely casual or ad-hoc engagement.​ ​3.​ ​The​​applicant​​accepted​​the​​offer​​and​​joined​​service​​on​​25.06.2024​ ​at​ ​Jawahar​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya,​ ​Amritsar-I,​ ​Punjab.​ ​While​ ​working​ ​at​ ​JNV​​Amritsar,​​the​​applicant​​alleges​​that​​she​​was​​subjected​​to​​sexual​​and​ ​physical​ ​harassment​ ​by​ ​one​​Sh.​​Sumit​​Sharma,​​UDC.​​Complaints​​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​local​ ​authorities​ ​within​ ​NVS​ ​allegedly​ ​did​ ​not​ ​result​ ​in​ ​any​ ​action.​ ​According​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant,​ ​instead​ ​of​ ​redressing​ ​her​ ​grievance,​ ​certain​ ​officials​ ​allegedly​ ​retaliated​ ​by​ ​circulating​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 ​personal​ ​photographs​ ​taken​ ​from​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​office​ ​computer,​ +05'30' ​resulting​ ​in​ ​character​ ​assassination.​ ​These​ ​allegations​ ​were​ ​later​ ​incorporated​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​in​ ​her​ ​written​ ​representation​ ​and​ ​complaints to various authorities.​ ​3​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​4.​ ​Vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​19.10.2024,​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Principal,​ ​JNV​ ​Amritsar-I​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-3),​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​attached​ ​to​ ​JNV​ ​Mohali​ ​with​ ​immediate​ ​effect.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Principal​ ​had​ ​no​ ​authority​​to​​order​​such​​attachment​​and​​that​​the​​same​​was​​punitive​​and​ ​retaliatory​ ​in​ ​nature.​​Though​​the​​attachment​​order​​mentioned​​payment​ ​of​ ​TA/DA,​ ​no​ ​such​ ​allowance​ ​was​ ​paid.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​joined​ ​at​ ​JNV​ ​Mohali on 21.10.2024 and continued to work there.​ ​5.​ ​On​ ​09.04.2025,​ ​at​ ​about​ ​7:30​ ​PM,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​received​ ​a​ ​telephone​ ​call​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Principal,​ ​JNV​ ​Mohali,​ ​directing​ ​her​ ​to​ ​immediately​ ​report​ ​to​ ​the​ ​school​ ​office​ ​to​ ​receive​ ​an​ ​urgent​ ​communication​ ​from​ ​the​ ​Regional​ ​Office.​ ​Upon​ ​reaching​ ​the​ ​office,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​served​ ​with​ ​a​ ​forwarding​ ​letter​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​enclosing​ ​Order​ ​No.​ ​F.5-198/JSA/NVS/CR/Estt.(NT)/2024/447-52​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1),​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Assistant​ ​Commissioner-cum-Cluster​ ​In-Charge,​ ​NVS,​ ​Chandigarh,​ ​terminating​ ​her​ ​services​ ​forthwith​ ​by​ ​invoking​ ​Rule​ ​5(1)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CCS​ ​(Temporary​ ​Service)​ ​Rules,​ ​1965​ ​and​ ​Clause-2​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appointment​ ​letter.​ ​The​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​allegedly​ ​did​ ​not​ ​assign​ ​any​ ​reasons,​ ​nor​ ​did​ ​it​ ​refer​ ​to​ ​any​​adverse​​assessment,​​training​​deficiency,​​misconduct,​ ​or unsatisfactory performance.​ ​6.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​was​ ​passed​ ​without​ ​notice,​ ​warning,​ ​advisory,​ ​show​ ​cause,​ ​or​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​hearing,​ ​and​ ​during​ ​the​ ​subsistence​​of​​probation,​​without​​adherence​​to​ ​the​ ​DoPT​ ​Master​ ​Circular​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2019​ ​governing​ ​probation,​ ​training,​ ​evaluation,​ ​and​ ​termination​ ​of​ ​probationers.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Assistant​ ​Commissioner​ ​was​ ​neither​ ​the​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​appointing​​authority​​nor​​the​​disciplinary​​authority​​for​​the​​post​​of​​JSA,​​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​NVS​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​03.07.2023,​ ​and​ ​therefore​ ​lacked jurisdiction to issue the termination order.​ ​4​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​7.​ ​Aggrieved,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​submitted​ ​a​ ​detailed​ ​representation​ ​dated​ ​10.04.2025​ ​to​ ​the​ ​Commissioner,​ ​NVS,​ ​narrating​ ​the​ ​circumstances​​leading​​to​​her​​termination,​​including​​alleged​​harassment,​ ​retaliatory​ ​actions,​ ​and​ ​non-constitution​ ​of​ ​an​ ​Internal​ ​Complaints​ ​Committee.​ ​Alleging​ ​arbitrariness,​ ​mala​ ​fides,​ ​lack​ ​of​ ​jurisdiction,​ ​violation​​of​​constitutional​​protections,​​and​​breach​​of​​principles​​of​​natural​ ​justice,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​approached​ ​this​​Tribunal​​by​​filing​​the​​present​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​seeking​ ​quashing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​and​ ​consequential reliefs.​ ​8.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​has​ ​been​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Assistant​ ​Commissioner-cum-Cluster​​In-Charge,​​whereas​​the​​appointing​​authority​ ​for​ ​the​​post​​of​​Junior​​Secretariat​​Assistant​​is​​the​​Deputy​​Commissioner,​ ​who​ ​issued​ ​the​ ​appointment​ ​letter​ ​dated​ ​14.06.2024.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​​an​​order​​of​​termination​​under​​Rule​​5​​of​ ​the​ ​CCS​ ​(Temporary​ ​Service)​ ​Rules​ ​can​ ​be​ ​passed​ ​only​ ​by​ ​the​ ​appointing​ ​authority,​ ​rendering​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​void​ ​ab​ ​initio,​ ​because​ ​Rule​ ​5​ ​explicitly​ ​vests​ ​the​ ​power​ ​of​ ​termination​ ​in​ ​the​ ​appointing​ ​authority,​ ​and​ ​the​ ​exercise​ ​of​ ​such​ ​power​ ​by​ ​any​ ​other​ ​authority is impermissible and ultra vires.​ ​9.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​asserts​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​termination​ ​during​ ​probation​ ​was​ ​not​ ​based​ ​on​ ​any​ ​evaluation​​of​​performance,​​training​​failure,​​or​​probation​​report,​​and​​was​ ​not​ ​preceded​ ​by​ ​any​ ​warning​ ​or​ ​communication​ ​of​ ​shortcomings,​ ​contrary​ ​to​ ​the​ ​DoPT​ ​Master​ ​Circular​ ​dated​ ​11.03.2019​ ​governing​ ​probation​ ​and​ ​termination​ ​of​ ​probationers.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​the​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​does​ ​not​ ​disclose​ ​any​ ​reason​ ​whatsoever,​ ​thereby​ ​violating​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​principle​ ​that​ ​even​ ​administrative​ ​orders​ ​having​ ​civil​​consequences​​must​​be​​reasoned,​​fair,​ ​and​ ​transparent.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​5​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​applicant​​was​​not​​issued​​any​​show​​cause​​notice,​​charge​​memo,​​warning,​ ​or​ ​afforded​ ​any​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​hearing​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​termination,​ ​and​ ​is​ ​therefore violative of the principles of natural justice.​ ​10.​ ​It​​is​​further​​asserted​​by​​learned​​counsel​​for​​the​​applicant​​that​​the​ ​sequence​​of​​events​​viz.​​complaints​​of​​sexual​​harassment,​​attachment​​to​ ​another​ ​station,​ ​and​ ​sudden​ ​termination​ ​indicate​ ​retaliatory​ ​action​​and​ ​victimisation​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​for​ ​having​ ​raised​ ​grievances​ ​against​ ​officials.​ ​Learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​contends​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​action​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​is​ ​arbitrary,​ ​unreasonable,​ ​and​ ​discriminatory,​ ​offending​ ​Articles​ ​14,​ ​16,​ ​and​ ​21​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​India,​ ​and​ ​denies​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​the​ ​protection​ ​available​ ​even​ ​to​ ​probationers under Article 311(2).​ ​11.​ ​The​ ​replying​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contested​ ​the​ ​claim​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​asserted​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​​vide​​order​​dated​​09.04.2025​​passed​​during​​probation​​is​​lawful,​ ​valid​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​call​ ​for​ ​judicial​ ​interference.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​contended​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​order​ ​of​ ​termination​ ​was​ ​not​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​any​ ​authority​​subordinate​​to​​the​​appointing​​authority.​​The​​respondents​​have​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​NVS​ ​HQ​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​03.07.2023​ ​(Annexure​ ​R-2/1),​ ​submitting​ ​that​ ​the​ ​appointing,​ ​disciplinary,​ ​appellate​ ​and​ ​reviewing​ ​authorities​ ​for​ ​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​JSA​ ​were​ ​revised,​ ​and​ ​as​ ​per​ ​the​ ​said​ ​notification,​ ​the​ ​appointing​ ​and​ ​disciplinary​ ​authority​ ​for​ ​JSA​ ​posted​ ​in​ ​Jawahar​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya​ ​is​ ​Principal​ ​of​ ​the​ ​concerned​ ​JNV​ ​and​ ​the​ ​Appellate Authority is Assistant Commissioner (Cluster).​ ​12.​ ​It​ ​has​ ​been​ ​clarified​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​although​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​posted​ ​at​ ​JNV​ ​Amritsar-I,​ ​the​ ​appointment​ ​order​ ​dated​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​14.06.2024​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Deputy​ ​Commissioner,​ ​NVS​ ​RO​ ​Chandigarh,​ ​strictly​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​NVS​ ​Headquarters​ ​instructions​ ​dated​ ​13.05.2022​ ​(Annexure​ ​R-2/2),​ ​which​ ​provides​ ​that​ ​for​ ​6​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​compassionate​ ​appointment​ ​cases​ ​approved​ ​by​​Headquarters,​​the​​offer​ ​of appointment is to be issued by the concerned Regional Office.​ ​13.​ ​The​​respondents​​have​​contended​​that​​on​​account​​of​​retirement​​of​ ​the​ ​regular​ ​Principal​ ​and​ ​additional​ ​charge​ ​being​ ​held​ ​by​ ​the​ ​Vice​ ​Principal,​​the​​Assistant​​Commissioner​​(Cluster​​Incharge),​​being​​the​​next​ ​higher​​authority,​​lawfully​​exercised​​powers​​under​​proviso​​to​​Rule​​5(1)​​of​ ​the​ ​CCS​ ​(Temporary​ ​Service)​ ​Rules,​ ​1965​ ​to​ ​terminate​ ​the​ ​services​ ​of​ ​the applicant during probation.​ ​14.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​asserted​ ​that​ ​whereas​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​appointed​ ​on​ ​compassionate​ ​grounds​ ​as​ ​widow​ ​of​ ​Late​ ​Sh.​ ​Sahdev​ ​Singh,​​upon​​subsequent​​verification,​​serious​​discrepancies​​regarding​​her​ ​marital​ ​status​ ​were​ ​revealed.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​alleged​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​​deliberately​​concealed​​material​​facts​​and​​failed​​to​​produce​​any​ ​valid​ ​marriage​ ​certificate​ ​despite​ ​repeated​ ​directions.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​several​​documents​​were​​found​​showing​​conflicting​ ​claims of the applicant being the widow of the deceased employee.​ ​15.​ ​It​​is​​submitted​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​the​​first​​wife,​​Smt.​​Sunita​ ​Devi,​ ​approached​ ​the​ ​department​ ​with​ ​documentary​ ​proof​ ​establishing​ ​herself​ ​as​ ​the​ ​legally​ ​wedded​ ​wife​ ​of​ ​the​ ​deceased​ ​employee.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​further​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​subsequent​ ​verification​ ​from​ ​civil​ ​authorities​​and​​the​​Sub-Divisional​​Officer,​​Nainwa​​(Rajasthan)​​confirmed​ ​that​ ​no​ ​marriage​ ​was​ ​registered​ ​between​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​and​ ​Late​ ​Sh.​ ​Sahdev​ ​Singh.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​further​ ​contended​ ​that​ ​two​ ​separate​ ​death​ ​certificates​ ​were​ ​issued​ ​in​ ​respect​ ​of​ ​Late​ ​Sh.​ ​Sahdev​ ​Singh,​​one​​naming​​Smt.​​Sunita​​Devi​​as​​widow​​and​​the​​other​​naming​​the​ ​applicant.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​submit​ ​that​ ​a​ ​formal​ ​inquiry​ ​regarding​ ​this​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​discrepancy by the District Magistrate, Sangrur is presently undergoing.​ ​16.​ ​It​​is​​further​​submitted​​by​​the​​respondents​​that​​during​​service,​​the​ ​conduct​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​found​ ​unsatisfactory.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​asserted​ ​that​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​inappropriate​ ​relations,​ ​objectionable​ ​7​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​chats​​and​​photographs​​came​​to​​light​​during​​a​​fact​​finding​​inquiry,​​which​ ​recommended​ ​appropriate​ ​action​ ​to​ ​maintain​ ​organizational​ ​discipline​ ​and​​decency.​​The​​respondents​​have​​stated​​that​​the​​complaints​​of​​sexual​ ​harassment​ ​fled​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​against​ ​a​​colleague​​were​​investigated​ ​by​​the​​police​​and​​the​​police​​authorities​​have​​found​​that​​no​​such​​incident​ ​of​ ​sexual​ ​harassment​​has​​been​​observed,​​and​​the​​respondents​​contend​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​levelled​ ​false​ ​and​ ​fabricated​ ​allegations​ ​on​ ​account​ ​of​ ​personal​ ​grudges.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​​further​​stated​​that​ ​other​ ​complaints​ ​lodged​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​against​ ​officials​ ​were​ ​later​ ​withdrawn by her, and the same have been disposed of.​ ​17.​ ​It​ ​has​ ​been​ ​vehemently​ ​contended​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​is​ ​a​ ​termination​ ​simpliciter​ ​during​ ​probation,​ ​not​ ​founded​ ​on​ ​misconduct,​ ​and​ ​hence​ ​does​ ​not​ ​attract​ ​the​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​or​ ​require​ ​a​ ​disciplinary​ ​inquiry.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​submit​ ​that​ ​compassionate​ ​appointment​ ​is​ ​not​ ​a​ ​vested​ ​right​​and​​the​​same​​having​​been​​obtained​​through​​misrepresentation​​and​ ​fraud, the applicant cannot seek protection or reinstatement.​ ​18.​ ​In​​rejoinder,​​the​​applicant​​has​​contested​​the​​contentions​​raised​​by​ ​the​ ​respondents.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​categorically​ ​denies​ ​applying​ ​to​ ​or​ ​obtaining​​any​​death​​certificate​​through​​the​​Principal​​of​​any​​school​​or​​by​ ​manipulating​ ​municipal​ ​authorities,​ ​contending​ ​that​ ​the​ ​Principal​ ​of​ ​a​ ​school​​is​​not​​a​​competent​​authority​​to​​issue​​a​​death​​certificate,​​claiming​ ​that​ ​the​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​manipulation​ ​are​ ​stigmatic​ ​and​ ​unsupported​ ​by​ ​any​​evidence.​​The​​applicant​​further​​contends​​that​​the​​respondents​​have​ ​admitted​ ​that​ ​due​ ​diligence​ ​was​ ​exercised​ ​while​ ​considering​ ​and​ ​approving​​her​​appointment​​on​​compassionate​​grounds,​​and​​argues​​that​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​having​ ​once​ ​approved​ ​the​ ​appointment​ ​after​ ​due​ ​verification,​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​cannot​ ​now​ ​turn​ ​around​ ​and​ ​question​ ​its​ ​legality​ ​without​ ​following​ ​due​ ​process​ ​of​ ​law.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​contests​ ​the​ ​contentions​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​one​ ​Smt.​ ​Sunita​ ​Devi,​ ​stating​​competing​​claims​ ​8​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​for​​compassionate​​appointment​​to​​be​​irrelevant,​​as​​no​​such​​person​​ever​ ​applied​ ​for​ ​compassionate​ ​appointment​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​or​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​the​ ​selection and appointment of the applicant.​ ​19.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​has​ ​reiterated​ ​that​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​of​ ​termination​​dated​​09.04.2025​​is​​not​​termination​​simpliciter​​but​​punitive​ ​in​ ​nature​ ​as​ ​the​ ​same​ ​is​ ​based​ ​on​ ​alleged​ ​misconduct​ ​and​ ​stigmatic​ ​allegations.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​argues​ ​that​ ​such​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​being​ ​punitive​ ​requires​ ​compliance​ ​with​ ​Article​ ​311(2)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Constitution​ ​of​ ​India,​​stating​​that​​no​​chargesheet,​​inquiry​​or​​opportunity​​of​​hearing​​was​ ​granted​ ​to​ ​her,​ ​and​ ​as​ ​such​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​is​ ​unconstitutional​ ​and​ ​void.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​further​ ​reiterates​ ​that​ ​no​ ​shortcomings​ ​or​ ​adverse​ ​remarks​ ​regarding​ ​her​ ​work,​ ​conduct​ ​or​ ​training​ ​during​ ​probation​ ​was​ ​ever​ ​communicated​ ​to​ ​her,​ ​and​ ​it​ ​is​ ​asserted​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​that​ ​she​ ​performed​ ​her​ ​duties​ ​diligently​ ​and​ ​satisfactorily.​ ​20.​ ​The​ ​applicant​ ​reiterates​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​is​ ​a​ ​counterblast​ ​to​ ​complaints​ ​lodged​ ​by​ ​her​ ​with​ ​the​ ​police,​ ​National​ ​Commission​ ​for​ ​Women,​ ​PMO​ ​and​ ​other​​authorities​​regarding​​harassment,​​and​​that​​the​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​was​ ​delivered​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​late​ ​in​ ​the​ ​evening,​ ​which​ ​demonstrates​ ​haste,​ ​mala​ ​fide​ ​and​ ​arbitrariness​ ​when​ ​there​​was​​no​​administrative​​urgency​​justifying​​such​​action.​​As​​such,​​the​ ​applicant​​alleges​​colorable​​exercise​​of​​power​​on​​the​​part​​of​​the​​superior​ ​officers.​ ​21.​ ​We​ ​have​ ​considered​ ​the​ ​rival​ ​submissions​ ​advanced​ ​by​ ​learned​ ​counsel​ ​for​ ​the​ ​parties​ ​and​ ​perused​ ​the​ ​pleadings​ ​and​ ​material​ ​placed​ ​on​ ​record.​ ​The​ ​core​ ​issue​ ​that​ ​arises​ ​for​ ​determination​ ​is​ ​whether​ ​the​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​terminating​ ​the​ ​services​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant,​ ​who​ ​was​ ​a​ ​probationer,​ ​is​ ​a​ ​termination​ ​simpliciter​ ​or​ ​a​ ​punitive/stigmatic​ ​termination​ ​founded​ ​on​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​misconduct,​ ​and​​if​​so,​​whether​​the​​same​​could​​have​​been​​passed​​without​​adhering​​to​ ​9​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​the​​principles​​of​​natural​​justice​​and​​procedure​​prescribed​​for​​disciplinary​ ​action.​ ​22.​ ​It​​is​​undisputed​​that​​the​​applicant​​was​​offered​​appointment​​to​​the​ ​post​ ​of​ ​Junior​ ​Secretariat​ ​Assistant​​(JSA)​​in​​Navodaya​​Vidyalaya​​Samiti​ ​on​ ​compassionate​ ​grounds​ ​vide​ ​appointment/offer​ ​letter​ ​dated​ ​14.06.2024​ ​issued​ ​from​ ​NVS​ ​Regional​ ​Office,​ ​Chandigarh.Pursuant​ ​to​ ​the​ ​offer​ ​of​​appointment,​​the​​applicant​​joined​​service​​on​​25.06.2024​​at​ ​Jawahar​ ​Navodaya​ ​Vidyalaya,​ ​Amritsar-I.​ ​The​ ​appointment​ ​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​subject​ ​to​ ​probation​ ​and​ ​governed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​terms​ ​and​ ​conditions​ ​contained​ ​in​ ​the​ ​appointment​ ​letter​ ​and​ ​applicable​ ​service​ ​rules.​ ​Vide​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​19.10.2024,​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​attached/transferred​ ​from​​JNV​​Amritsar-I​​to​​JNV​​Mohali,​​and​​she​​joined​ ​at​ ​JNV​ ​Mohali​ ​on​ ​21.10.2024​ ​and​ ​continued​ ​to​ ​work​ ​there​ ​till​ ​termination.​ ​23.​ ​The​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​​terminates​​the​​services​​of​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​by​ ​invoking​ ​Rule​ ​5(1)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CCS​ ​(Temporary​ ​Service)​ ​Rules,​ ​1965​ ​and​ ​the​ ​relevant​ ​clause​ ​of​ ​the​ ​appointment​ ​letter.​ ​The​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​is​ ​non-speaking​ ​on​ ​its​ ​face​ ​and​ ​does​ ​not​ ​record​ ​detailed​ ​reasons,​ ​charges,​ ​or​ ​findings​ ​in​ ​the​ ​body​ ​of​ ​the​ ​order​ ​itself.No​ ​formal​ ​departmental​ ​charge-sheet​ ​or​ ​regular​ ​disciplinary​ ​inquiry​ ​under​ ​CCS​ ​(CCA)​ ​Rules​ ​was​ ​issued​ ​or​ ​conducted​ ​against​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​prior​ ​to​ ​passing​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​order.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​the​ ​stand​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​in​ ​their​ ​reply​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​was​ ​passed​ ​during​ ​the​ ​period of probation and is described by them as termination simpliciter.​ ​24.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​admitted​ ​from​ ​the​ ​pleadings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​that​ ​verification​ ​regarding​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​marital​ ​status​ ​and​ ​compassionate​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​appointment​ ​eligibility​ ​was​ ​undertaken​ ​after​ ​appointment,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​fact-finding​ ​inquiry​ ​was​ ​conducted​ ​into​ ​allegations​ ​relating​ ​to​ ​the​ ​applicant's​ ​conduct​ ​and​ ​documents.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​have​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​NVS​ ​notification​ ​dated​ ​03.07.2023​ ​regarding​ ​appointing/disciplinary​ ​10​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​authorities,​ ​and​ ​Proviso​ ​to​ ​Rule​ ​5(1)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CCS​ ​(Temporary​ ​Service)​ ​Rules,​ ​1965,​ ​to​ ​justify​ ​the​ ​competence​ ​of​ ​the​ ​authority​ ​issuing​ ​the​ ​termination order.​ ​25.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​undisputed​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​submitted​ ​a​ ​representation​ ​dated​ ​10.04.2025​ ​against​​the​​termination​​order​​to​​higher​​authorities​​in​ ​NVS.​ ​Complaints​ ​and​ ​counter-complaints​ ​were​ ​made​ ​by​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​and​ ​examined​ ​at​ ​some​ ​level,​ ​including​ ​police​ ​verification​ ​regarding​ ​harassment​ ​allegations,​ ​which​ ​is​ ​acknowledged​ ​in​ ​the​ ​reply​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents.​ ​26.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​not​ ​in​ ​dispute​ ​that​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​was​ ​appointed​ ​as​ ​Junior​ ​Secretariat​ ​Assistant​ ​on​ ​compassionate​ ​grounds​ ​and​ ​joined​ ​service​ ​on​ ​25.06.2024.​ ​It​ ​is​ ​also​ ​not​ ​in​ ​dispute​ ​that​ ​she​ ​was​ ​on​ ​probation​ ​at​ ​the​ ​time​ ​of​ ​passing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​termination​ ​order​ ​and​ ​that​ ​no​ ​formal​ ​charge-sheet​ ​or​ ​regular​ ​departmental​ ​inquiry​ ​preceded​ ​the​​termination​ ​order.​ ​The​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​invokes​ ​Rule​ ​5(1)​ ​of​ ​the​ ​CCS​ ​(Temporary​ ​Service)​ ​Rules,​ ​1965​ ​and​ ​is​ ​worded​ ​as​ ​an​ ​order​ ​of​ ​termination​ ​during​ ​probation.​​The​​law​​is​​well​​settled​​that​​where​​the​​form​​of​​the​​order​​is​​not​ ​conclusive,​ ​the​ ​Court/Tribunal​ ​is​ ​required​ ​to​ ​examine​ ​the​​foundation​​of​ ​the​​order​​and​​not​​merely​​its​​language.​​If​​termination,​​though​​expressed​ ​as​​simpliciter,​​is​​in​​fact​​founded​​on​​allegations​​of​​misconduct​​and​​casts​​a​ ​stigma,​ ​it​ ​becomes​ ​punitive​ ​in​ ​nature​ ​and​ ​cannot​ ​be​​sustained​​without​ ​compliance with principles of natural justice and disciplinary procedure.​ ​27.​ ​In​ ​the​ ​present​ ​case,​ ​the​ ​reply​ ​filed​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​clearly​ ​discloses​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​is​ ​founded​ ​upon​ ​alleged​ ​misconduct​ ​and​ ​disqualification,​​i.e​​the​​alleged​​discrepancies​​and​​concealment​​regarding​ ​marital​ ​status​ ​in​ ​compassionate​ ​appointment,​ ​alleged​ ​submission​ ​of​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​conflicting​ ​documents,​ ​alleged​ ​objectionable​ ​conduct,​ ​chats​ ​and​ ​photographs,​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​inappropriate​ ​relations​ ​and​ ​indiscipline,​ ​findings​​of​​fact-finding​​verification​​and​​inquiries,​​and​​assertions​​that​​the​ ​appointment​ ​was​ ​obtained​ ​by​ ​misrepresentation/fraud.​ ​These​ ​11​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​averments​​are​​not​​merely​​incidental​​background​​facts​​but​​are​​expressly​ ​relied​ ​upon​ ​by​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​to​ ​justify​ ​the​ ​termination.​ ​Thus,​ ​the​ ​pleadings​ ​of​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​themselves​ ​demonstrate​ ​that​ ​the​ ​termination​ ​is​ ​founded​ ​on​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​misconduct​​and​​stigma,​​and​​is​ ​not based on mere unsuitability, performance, or probation assessment.​ ​28.​ ​The​​Hon'ble​​Delhi​​High​​Court​​in​​Govt.​​of​​NCT​​of​​Delhi​​Vs.​​Virender​ ​in​ ​W.P.(C)​ ​12696/2023,​ ​has​ ​reiterated​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​principle​ ​that​ ​where​ ​termination​ ​of​ ​a​ ​probationer​ ​is​ ​based​ ​on​ ​misconduct,​ ​fraud,​ ​or​ ​moral​ ​blameworthiness​ ​and​ ​the​ ​order​ ​is​ ​punitive​ ​in​ ​nature,​ ​even​ ​if​ ​styled​ ​as​ ​termination​ ​simpliciter,​ ​the​ ​same​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​sustained​ ​unless​ ​preceded​ ​by​ ​a​ ​proper​ ​inquiry​ ​consistent​ ​with​ ​principles​ ​of​ ​natural​ ​justice.​ ​The​ ​Hon'ble​ ​High​ ​Court​ ​held​ ​that​ ​if​ ​misconduct​ ​forms​​the​​foundation​​of​​the​ ​action, disciplinary procedure is mandatory.​ ​29.​ ​Similarly,​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​law​ ​flowing​ ​from​ ​long​ ​line​ ​of​ ​judgments​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Hon'ble​ ​Supreme​ ​Court​ ​holds​ ​that​ ​while​ ​a​ ​probationer​ ​can​ ​be​ ​discharged​​for​​unsuitability​​by​​a​​simpliciter​​order,​​but​​where​​termination​ ​is​​based​​on​​allegations​​of​​misconduct​​or​​carries​​stigma,​​the​​protection​​of​ ​Article​ ​311(2)​ ​and​ ​principles​ ​and​ ​natural​ ​justice​ ​is​ ​attracted,​ ​and​ ​a​ ​regular​ ​inquiry​ ​is​​necessary.​​In​​the​​present​​case,​​admittedly,​​no​​charge​ ​memo​ ​was​ ​issued,​ ​no​ ​inquiry​ ​officer​ ​was​ ​appointed,​ ​no​ ​opportunity​ ​of​ ​hearing​​or​​defence​​was​​granted,​​and​​no​​finding​​of​​guilt​​was​​recorded​​in​ ​a​ ​duly​ ​conducted​ ​inquiry.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​permitted​ ​to​​rely​ ​upon​ ​allegations​ ​of​ ​misconduct​ ​and​ ​fraud​ ​as​ ​the​ ​basis​ ​of​ ​termination​ ​while​ ​simultaneously​ ​claiming​ ​that​ ​the​ ​order​ ​is​ ​termination​ ​simpliciter​ ​immune from procedural safeguards.​ ​30.​ ​Further,​ ​once​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​themselves​ ​assert​ ​that​ ​the​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30' ​appointment​ ​was​ ​obtained​ ​through​ ​misrepresentation​ ​and​ ​that​ ​the​ ​conduct​​of​​the​​applicant​​was​​blameworthy,​​they​​were​​bound​​to​​proceed​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​disciplinary​ ​procedure.​ ​Short-circuiting​ ​the​ ​process​ ​by​ ​invoking​ ​Rule​ ​5​ ​of​ ​the​ ​Temporary​ ​Service​ ​Rules​ ​is​ ​impermissible​ ​12​ ​(O.A.No.060/504/2025)​ ​where​ ​the​ ​action​ ​is​ ​punitive​ ​in​ ​substance.​ ​In​​view​​of​​the​​law​​laid​​down​ ​by​​the​​Hon'ble​​Delhi​​High​​Court​​in​​NCT​​of​​Delhi​​Vs.​​Virender​​(supra)​​and​ ​the​ ​settled​ ​principles​ ​governing​ ​stigmatic​ ​termination​ ​of​ ​probationers,​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​cannot​ ​be​ ​sustained​ ​in​ ​law,​ ​and​ ​the​​same​​is​​liable​ ​to​ ​be​ ​quashed.​ ​It​ ​is,​ ​however,​ ​clarified​ ​that​ ​quashing​ ​of​ ​the​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​will​ ​not​ ​preclude​ ​the​ ​respondents​ ​from​ ​proceeding​ ​afresh​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​law,​ ​if​ ​so​​advised,​​by​​initiating​​appropriate​​disciplinary​ ​proceedings​ ​or​ ​verification​ ​proceedings,​ ​strictly​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​applicable rules and principles of natural justice.​ ​31.​ ​In​ ​light​ ​of​ ​the​ ​discussion​ ​hereinabove,​ ​this​ ​Original​ ​Application​​is​ ​allowed.​ ​The​ ​impugned​ ​order​ ​dated​ ​09.04.2025​ ​(Annexure​ ​A-1)​ ​issued​ ​by​​Respondent​​No.​​5​​terminating​​the​​services​​of​​the​​applicant​​is​​hereby​ ​quashed​ ​and​ ​set​ ​aside.​ ​The​ ​respondents​ ​are​ ​directed​ ​to​ ​treat​ ​the​ ​applicant​ ​as​ ​continuing​ ​in​ ​service​ ​with​ ​all​ ​consequential​ ​benefits​ ​in​ ​accordance​​with​​rules.​​However,​​it​​is​​made​​clear​​that​​this​​order​​shall​​not​ ​prevent​​the​​competent​​authority​​from​​initiating​​appropriate​​proceedings​ ​against​ ​the​ ​applicant,​ ​if​ ​so​ ​warranted,​ ​in​ ​accordance​ ​with​ ​law​ ​and​ ​by​ ​following due process and principles of natural justice.​ ​32.​ ​The​ ​Original​ ​Application​ ​is​ ​disposed​ ​of​ ​in​ ​the​ ​above​ ​terms.​ ​Associated MAs shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs.​ ​(ANJALI BHAWRA)​ ​(RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)​ ​MEMBER (A)​ ​MEMBER (J)​ ​/s/​ 2026.02.04 SHIVAM 12:02:09 +05'30'