Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Sumit Kumar vs M/O Defence on 3 December, 2025
1 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on: 29.10.2025
Pronounced on: 03.12.2025
OA No. 060/75/2021
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
Sumit Kumar aged 32 years son of late Sh. Raj Kumar,
resident of House no. 813, Sector 47-A, Chandigarh-160046.
Group C.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. K.B. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Defence
South Block, New Delhi-110011. E Mail- [email protected]
2. Headquarters, Indian Air Force Subroto Park, New
Delhi 110010.
3. Air Officer Commanding, 12 Wing, Air Force, Air Force
Station, Chandigarh- 160003. E-mail - [email protected]
4. Civil Admin Section, Air Force Station, Air Force,
Chandigarh-160003. E-mail - [email protected]
5. Civilian Gazetted Officer (Admin), 12 Wing, Air Force
Station, Chandigarh- 160003. E-mail - [email protected]
.........Respondents
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30'
2 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
(BY Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC with Sh.
Shivam Dang)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. This application under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure A-1), vide which the services of applicant has been terminated in wholly illegal and arbitrary manner against principles of natural justice, stated to be under para 2 of the appointment letter dated 17.1.2019. Applicant further challenges order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure A-2) received on 18.1.2021, vide which he has been directed to vacate the govt. accommodation allotted to him.
2. Through the present Original Application, the applicant has sought the following relief(s):-
―8(II) That impugned order of termination dated 21.12.2020(A-1) and order dated 11.01.2021 received on 18.1.2021 (A-2) be quashed and set aside being wholly illegal and arbitrary and in violation of law enunciated by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India.
(III) That respondents may kindly be directed to reinstate the applicant back in service with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances and interest @ 18% per annum.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 3 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
3. The facts as projected by the applicant are that the applicant's father, Sh. Raj Kumar, who was serving in the respondent Department, expired in harness. The applicant, being dependent along with his aged mother, was granted compassionate appointment vide letter dated 17.09.2018 (Annexure A-3). His appointment letter was issued on 17.01.2019 (Annexure A-4), placing him on two years' probation with a clause permitting termination for unsatisfactory conduct or performance without notice.
4. The probation period was to continue until 17.01.2021.
During this period the applicant's work and conduct remained satisfactory and he was never issued any show cause notice. In September 2019, he suffered fits and seizures and was treated at PGIMER, Chandigarh. His OPD card (Annexure A-5) shows earlier episodes and a family history of seizures, but he was declared fit to resume duty.
5. On 02.10.2020, while reporting for duty, the applicant was found to have fever during COVID-19 screening and was referred to SMC, Air Force Station, where he was advised home rest. On 05.10.2020 he was referred NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 4 (OA No. 060/75/2021) to GMCH-32 for COVID testing (Annexure A-6). He submitted his samples on 05.10.2020 and the report received on 09.10.2020 was negative (Annexure A-7). SMC subsequently tested him for typhoid and confirmed a positive result on 21.10.2020 (Annexure A-7). Although JWO Om Prakash Kharab questioned the validity of the SMC certificates, the applicant was kept on medical rest and was declared fit on 06.11.2020 (Annexure A-8), after which he resumed duty on 07.11.2020.
6. From 07.11.2020 to 18.12.2020, the applicant worked continuously without any break, including weekends, because of festival season duties and shortage of staff. He availed weekly offs only from 18.12.2020 to 21.12.2020 as per the rotation system followed among the nine cooks of the Officers' Mess.
7. Despite satisfactory performance, it appears that the respondents developed resentment over his medically justified absence between 02.10.2020 and 06.11.2020. On 21.12.2020, he was called to the CGO office and abruptly handed the termination order passed under para 2 of the appointment letter (Annexure A-1). His NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 5 (OA No. 060/75/2021) identity card and access cards were taken immediately. No notice, opportunity, or hearing was provided prior to issuing the termination order.
8. After termination, the applicant made repeated personal visits to senior officers from 22.12.2020 to 31.12.2020, seeking withdrawal of the order. Although the AOC initially indicated no issue with his conduct and later, during a meeting with union presidents around 31.12.2020, assured a six-month extension, no formal relief was granted.
9. While awaiting the promised extension, the applicant received an order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure A-2), delivered to him on 18.01.2021, directing him to vacate the government accommodation. The applicant contends that both orders are arbitrary and violate the principles of natural justice.
10. Pending final adjudication of the OA, the applicant sought a stay on the impugned orders to prevent irreparable hardship, given that he was appointed on compassionate grounds and supports his aged mother and two minor children aged three years and seven months.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 6 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
11. Earlier the applicant filed MA No. 2238/2022 whereby he prayed for restraining the respondents not to get him evicted from Government accommodation. In reply to this MA, the respondent representative who was present in court submitted that the original position regarding the occupancy of the applicant shall be restored forthwith.
12. Respondents have filed a written statement. It is stated by the respondents in the written statement that the applicant, PA No. 465592S, was appointed as Cook at 12 Wing Air Force under indigent circumstances as per HQ WAC, IAF letter dated 17.09.2018 and joined on 25.01.2019 vide appointment letter dated 17.01.2019. His father, Late Sh. Raj Kumar, had served as Safaiwala and died on 31.07.2006. The applicant was placed on two years' probation but frequently remained absent without permission. He was directed to resume duty through letters dated 15.11.2019 (Annexure R-2) and 14.01.2020 (Annexure R-3), warning him that unsatisfactory conduct during probation could lead to termination without notice. The applicant remained absent on several occasions, including for 69 days from 17.09.2019 to 25.11.2019. During this period, he NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 7 (OA No. 060/75/2021) submitted medical documents from PGIMER, Chandigarh, showing treatment for epilepsy since 30.09.2019, and a certificate issued by Dr. Manoj Kumar Goyal confirmed that he required continuous medication and might need light duties (Annexure R-4).
13. It is further stated by the respondents that the applicant admitted in his general application dated 23.03.2020 that he was suffering from generalized epilepsy since 28.09.2019 and found it difficult to work as a cook due to high temperatures. The respondents pointed out that the applicant had also given incorrect information at the time of appointment by denying a history of fainting attacks, whereas PGI records dated 18.10.2019 indicated seizure episodes for four years. His request for change of trade was examined, and clarification from HQ WAC was obtained through letters dated 03.04.2020 (Annexure R-6) and 19.04.2020 (Annexure R-7), referring to Air HQ letter dated 31.01.1992 (Annexure R-8), confirming that change of trade of civilian employees was not permissible. Despite repeated verbal and written warnings, including letter dated 11.11.2020 (Annexure R-9), he did not improve. NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 8 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
14. The respondents further state that although termination of his services was approved by the AOC on 05.03.2020 (Annexure R-1), the applicant and his mother requested another opportunity, and he was accordingly given nine more months to improve. He was also internally transferred from Catering Section to Officers' Mess on 22.05.2020 (Annexure R-10) to provide a more suitable work environment. However, his APAR for 2019-20 remained unsatisfactory. The written statement also describes his medical absences in October 2020, including typhoid detected on 21.10.2020, for which he was granted rest and was declared fit on 06.11.2020. Nonetheless, he continued to remain absent without proper intimation.
15. The respondents conclude in the written statement that the applicant was a habitual absentee, failed to improve even after repeated opportunities, and provided incorrect information at the time of appointment. They assert that due process was followed during the probation period and therefore the applicant is not entitled to any relief, and the OA deserves dismissal.
16. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating his stand as taken in the Original Application.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 9 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
17. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the pleadings on record.
18. Learned counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned termination is wholly illegal, arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. No show-cause notice, no opportunity of hearing, and no enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 was ever conducted, despite the respondents repeatedly warning the applicant that disciplinary action would be taken for alleged absence.
19. It is argued that the applicant's absence was due to bona fide medical reasons, duly supported by documents, and was never wilful. Had an enquiry been held, the applicant could have explained his medical condition. Instead, the respondents directly imposed the major penalty of termination without following due process.
20. Counsel further submits that the termination order is non-
speaking and contains no reasons. The respondents themselves admit alleged misconduct but violated the CCS (CCA) Rules by not giving the applicant any chance to respond. Neither the assessment report nor the APARs were ever communicated to the applicant, nor annexed NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 10 (OA No. 060/75/2021) with the written statement, although communication of adverse remarks is mandatory.
21. It is contended that the decision to terminate was taken as early as March 2020, even before the applicant was informed of any performance issues in November 2020. There is no provision to keep a termination order in abeyance, and no material has been placed on record to show any misconduct after March 2020. The Legal Officer's advice clearly stated that defects must be communicated in writing, which the respondents failed to do.
22. Learned counsel submits that the applicant was appointed on compassionate grounds and is the sole breadwinner. Instead of imposing the harshest penalty, the respondents could have adjusted him against MTS/Mazdoor duties. Lastly, it is settled law that termination of a probationer based on allegations of misconduct becomes punitive and cannot be ordered without notice or enquiry. The present termination, being stigmatic, is therefore unsustainable in law.
23. The learned counsel for the applicant relied on the following judgements to strengthen his arguments further:-
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 11 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
(i) V.P. Ahuja Vs. State of Punjab (SC), 2000(2) SCT 327
(ii) Union of India Vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi (SC), 2010 AIR Supreme Court 3493
(iii) CAT Jabalpur Bench judgement in OA No. 202/805 titled Ankit Sharma Vs. Comptroller and Auditor General through Auditor General and other decided on 14.07.2020, 2020(3) SLJ 122.
24. After carefully considering the rival submissions, examining the material placed on record, and evaluating the circumstances leading to the impugned termination, this Tribunal is of the view that the action of the respondents cannot be sustained in law. Although the applicant was a probationer, the record of the respondents themselves indicates that the termination was founded upon specific allegations relating to absenteeism, medical fitness, and alleged suppression of facts. Once the termination is founded on such allegations, it ceases to be a simpliciter discharge during probation and necessarily assumes a punitive character. In such a situation, the protection of principles of natural justice becomes mandatory.
25. The respondents admit that repeated warnings were issued and that the applicant's conduct and performance were assessed adversely. However, it is not disputed that no show-cause notice, no communication of adverse APAR NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 12 (OA No. 060/75/2021) entries, and no opportunity whatsoever was afforded to the applicant prior to passing the impugned termination order. The alleged shortcomings were never put to him formally. The applicant was thereby deprived of the opportunity to explain his medical condition, the reasons for his absences, or the correctness of the assumptions drawn by the authorities. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that where termination is based on misconduct or stigma, compliance with natural justice and applicable rules becomes indispensable.
26. We also find merit in the contention that the impugned order dated 21.12.2020 is a non-speaking order, containing no reasons and offering no indication of the grounds for which the applicant's services were dispensed with. Even if the respondents intended to act under the probation clause, a non-arbitrary and fair procedure was required to be followed. The admitted fact that the decision to terminate had been taken as early as March 2020, without any communication to the applicant and without placing any post-March 2020 material on record, further reinforces the finding that the process adopted was neither transparent nor fair.
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 13 (OA No. 060/75/2021)
27. The Tribunal is conscious of the fact that compassionate appointment does not confer immunity from the conditions of service or from the probation clause. However, the very objective of such appointments--namely alleviating acute financial distress following the death of the breadwinner-- requires that the employer act with an enhanced degree of fairness and sensitivity. In the present case, instead of exploring the possibility of assigning suitable duties in light of the applicant's medical condition, or at the very least conducting a proper enquiry, the respondents chose to invoke the harshest measure in a summary manner. Such action cannot be countenanced.
28. In view of the above discussion, we hold that the impugned termination order dated 21.12.2020 (Annexure A-1) as well as the accommodation-vacation order dated 11.01.2021 (Annexure A-2) are arbitrary, punitive in nature, violative of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965, and in breach of the principles of natural justice. The same are therefore liable to be set aside.
29. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed. The impugned orders (Annexures A-1 and A-2) are hereby quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30' 14 (OA No. 060/75/2021) reinstate the applicant in service forthwith, with all consequential benefits, except back wages, which shall be restricted to 50% in view of the period of non-service and the medical circumstances on record. However, the period shall be counted for continuity of service, seniority, and pensionary benefits. The respondents shall also ensure that the applicant is assigned duties commensurate with his medical condition, as certified by competent medical authorities.
30. The above directions shall be complied with within eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
31. All pending MAs, if any, are also disposed of accordingly.
32. There shall be no order so as to costs.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*
NEERU DOUGALL 2025.12.23 11:37:08+05'30'