Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Hukum Singh Bisen vs South East Central Railway on 26 June, 2025
1
(Reserved on 24.02.2025)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
Original Application 1124 of 2022
Jabalpur, this the 26th day of June, 2025
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Hukum Singh Bisen, S/o Shri Yograj Bisen, Aged about 30 years,
Occupation, Junior Engineer (Telecom) Trainee, R/o Ramgarhi, Tehsil -
Kirnapur, Balaghat (M.P.) - 481115
.......Applicant
Advocate for the applicant: Shri Akash Choudhary
VERSUS
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Rail
Bhavan, 1, Raisina Road, New Delhi 110001.
2. The General Manager, South East Central Railway, Bilaspur (C.G.)
495001
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, South East Central Railway,
Kingsway, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 440001.
4. The Sr. Divisional Signal and Telecommunication Engineer
(DSTE), South East Central Railway, Kingsway, Nagpur
(Maharashtra) 440001
5. The Sr. Divisional Personnel Officer, South East Central Railway,
Kingsway, Nagpur (Maharashtra) 440001
......Respondents
Advocate for the respondents: Shri N.K.Mishra
THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00'
2
ORDER
By Mallika Arya, AM-
The instant Original Application filed under section 19 of Administrative Tribunals Act 1985, wherein the applicant is praying to set aside the impugned order dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure A/1).
2. The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The applicant was appointed to the post of Junior Engineer (Telecom) on probation for a period of two years and during training period an FIR was registered against him on 12.06.2021, at, Balaghat Pilice Station bearing Crime No. 400/2021 under Sections 413, 419,420, & 468 of the Indian Penal Code read with Sections 66B, 66D of the Information Technology Act (Annexure A/2). The applicant was placed under arrest on 12.06.2021. After the arrest of the applicant the Police Superintendent, Balaghat vide letter dated 20.07.2021 informed the Divisional Personnel Officer that the applicant is under judicial custody (Annexure A/3). The applicant thereafter preferred an application under Section 439 before the Hon‟ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Bench in MCRC No. 36318/2021 and the same was heard on 25.11.2021. The applicant was released from custody on 26.11.2021, he approached the respondent department with a request to join his duties but the respondents did not allow him to join back. A Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2021 was issued to the applicant regarding "unauthorized absence"
THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 3 which was pinned on the bulletin board of the respondents‟ office. The applicant preferred a representation to the respondents for permitting him to join work. Lastly he preferred a representation dated 08.12.2021 to the respondents for supplying him a copy of Show Cause Notice dated 17.06.2021 (Annexure A/6). Thereafter the applicant replied to the Show Cause Notice vide letter dated 27.04.2022. (Annexure A/7). The applicant denied the allegation of the respondents regarding his "unauthorized absence". The applicant being aggrieved by the inaction of the respondents in not permitting him to join his duties and training, preferred an Original Application bearing O.A. No. 640/2022 before the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai which became infructuous as the respondents issued the impugned termination order dated 04.11.2022 (Annexure A/1). Without even considering the applicant's reply to the Show Cause Notice, the termination order was passed. The impugned order does not even mention the reason for dispensing with a regular Enquiry, which would have clearly brought out the truth and would have demonstrated the Applicant's innocence. It would also be apt to mention that the applicant was unable to report for duty as he was „under arrest‟ during the said period.
3. The respondents have filed their reply stating that the applicant JE/Trainee (Tele) ITR was arrested by the Balaghat Police. A letter dated 28/06/2021 was written to Superintendent of Police Balaghat to ascertain the facts Superintendent of THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 4 Police Balaghat vide his letter No.PA/BALA/Reader/331/2021, dated 20/07/2021 (Annexure R-1) addressed to the then D.P.O. informed that the applicant was arrested by Balaghat Police on 12/06/2021 and a criminal case was registered against him vide FIR No.400/2021 for offences under Section 413, 419, 420, 467, 468 of Indian Penal Code read with section 66B, 66D of IT Act. It has further been stated, that consequent to arrest of the applicant by Balaghat Police, a show cause notice was issued to him vide No.P/NGP/RUL D&A/HSB/2021, dated 17/06/2021. A copy of show cause notice-1 No.P/NGP/ RUL/D&A/HSB/2021, dated 17/06/2021 is as per (Annexure R-2). The Show Cause Notice categorically mentions that the conduct of the applicant as a trainee/temporary employee is unsatisfactory as he remained unauthorizedly absent from training/duty without any authority and intimation. It has been further contended that the applicant replied vide letter dated 27/04/2022 in response to the above show cause Notice-1 dated 17/06/2021. The competent authority after going through the reply of the applicant and after proper application of mind, took a view that it was not desirable to keep the applicant in Railways/Public Service who was not amenable to discipline and not devoted to duty. Despite the Show Cause Notice, the applicant he did not report for duty nor did he respond to the Show Cause Notice. Accordingly, the competent authority vide letter No.P/NGP/RUL/D&A/HSB/2021/TN, dated 04/11/2022 THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 5 (Annexure R-4) terminated the services of the applicant in terms of Para-3 of offer of appointment and Rule No.301(3)(c) of L.R. Esttt. Code Vol.-1.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has further stated in the rejoinder that the entire aspect of alleged unauthorized absence of the applicant stands covered by the judgment rendered by the Hon‟ble Apex Court in the case of Krushnakant B. Parmar Vs. Union of India and another, (@012) 3 SCC 178 and Chhel Singh vs MGB Gramina Bank, Pali and others, (2014) 13 SCC 166, wherein the Hon'be Apex Court has held that only such incidences of unauthorized absence amount to misconduct where the absence is willful. However, where such absence is for the reasons beyond the control of the delinquent employee, the same cannot be said to be misconduct and no employee can be punished. Thus, in view of the aforesaid law, the respondents have erred in issuing the impugned punishment order on account of unauthorized absence as in the instant case, the applicant was under
judicial custody for the period, the respondents have treated the same „as unauthorized absence‟. Since the same was not in the hands of the applicant, therefore, the same cannot be said to be "unauthorized absence".
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has also filed M.A. No. 296/2025 on 24.02.2025 praying that the documents annexed with the application be taken on record. M.A. No.296/2025 has been allowed.
THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 6
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents and also taken note of the case laws relied upon by both the learned counsel for the parties.
7. The applicant is trying to make a case that since the termination has taken place without show cause notice to him and there was no misconduct on his part therefore, his services could not be terminated on the grounds of unauthorized absence. The applicant has also stated the termination order is stigmatic and therefore, Article 311 gets attracted. Further, no departmental enquiry was held in the subject case. Hence the action of the respondents in terminating the services of the applicant on the ground of wrongful act/offence without giving a show cause notice Departmental Enquiry is unwarranted. The respondents on the other hand have contended that the applicant got arrested for an offence punishable under section 413, 419, 420, 467, 468 of the IPC read with 66B, 66D, of the IT Act. Consequent of the arrest of the applicant a letter dated 28.06.2021was written by the respondents to the Superintendent of Police Balaghat to ascertain the correct facts. The Superintendent of Police Balaghat vide his letter dated 20.07.2021 addressed to the then DPO informed that the applicant had been arrested by the Balaghat Police on account of aforesaid charges. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 17.06.2021 was issued to the applicant on account of his "unauthorized absence" from duty without intimation and also on account of his conduct as trainee/temporary job being THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 7 unsatisfactory. He was given seven days‟ time to report for duty with a condition that in case he fails to report for duty then it would be presumed that he was no longer interested to serve the organization and action will be taken against him as per Rules. The reply of the applicant dated 27.04.2022 was considered by the competent authority of the respondents and it was held not desirable to continue with the services of the applicant, since he was not amenable to discipline and not devoted to duty. Accordingly, the services of the applicant have been terminated vide letter No.P/NGP/RUL/D&A/HSB/2021/TN dated 04/11/2022 in terms of para 3 of the offer of the appointment read with rule 301 (3) (C) of I.R. Establishment Code Vol.-I on completion of one month‟s notice period. Attention has been drawn to rule 301 Indian Railway Establishment code volume 1 wherein it has been mentioned that "services of all non gazetted Railway Servant who are on probation and temporary can be terminated by giving one month's notice if their services are found to be unsatisfactory and causing disruption of day to day working of Railway Administration and affecting public services at large".
8. As per clause 3 of the appointment letter issued to the applicant his employment was temporary and the services could be terminated at any time by giving 14 days‟ notice without any reasons being assigned.
THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 8
9. Rule 301 under chapter 3 of Indian Railway Service Establishment code volume-1 "Termination of Service in respect of Temporary Railway servants" reads as follows:-
Chapter 3 Termination of Service
301. Termination of service and period of notice (1) Temporary railway servants-When a person without a lien on a permanent post under Government is appointed to hold a temporary post or to officiate in a permanent post, he entitled to no notice of the termination of his service if such termination is due to the expiry of the sanction to the post which he holds of the expiry of the officiating vacancy, or to his compulsory retirement due to mental or physical incapacity or to his removal or dismissal as a disciplinary measure after compliance with the provisions of Clause (2) of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. If the termination of his service is due to some other cause, he shall be entitled to one month's notice provided he was engaged on a contract for a definite period and the contract does not provide for any other period of and to a notice of 14 days if he was not engaged on a contract.
The fact remains that the applicant was on probation and his services could be terminated within the probation period by the respondents without assigning any reason, by giving due notice which has been done by the respondents. We also observe that his services have been terminated on account of his lack of devotion to duty and also due to his conduct unbecoming of a government servant.
10. In the case of Parshottom Lal Dhingra v. Union of India and Ors. Reported as 1958 SCR858, a Constitution Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that "appointment even to a permanent post on probation means that the employee THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 9 was taken on trial and such an appointment comes to an end even during or at the end of the probation if the person so appointed is found to be unsuited and his services are terminated."
10.(i) Further a Seven Judges Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court, in Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab. Reported as 1975(1) SCR 814 has held that an appointment on probation or on an officiating basis is of a transitory character with an understanding/implied condition that such an appointment is terminable at any time.
10.(ii) In the case of State of Punjab and ors. vs. Sukhwinder Singh [(2005) 5 SCC 569], the Hon‟ble Supreme Court stated has held as follows:-
"Termination of service of a probationer during or at the end of the period of probation will not ordinarily and by itself be a punishment because the servant so appointed has not right to continue to hold such a post any more than a servant employed on probation by a private employer is entitled to. The period of probation, therefore, furnishes a valuable opportunity to the master to closely observe the work of the probationer and by the time the period of probation expires to make up his mind whether to retain the servant by absorbing him in regular service or dispense with his service. Period of probation may vary from post to post or master to master and it is not obligatory on the master to prescribe a period of probation. It is always open to the employer to THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00' 10 employ a person without putting him on probation. Power to put the employee on probation for watching his performance and the period during which the performance is to be observed is the prerogative of the employer"
11. The aforesaid judgments clearly stipulate that a probationer has no legal right to be retained in service, if he does not successfully complete his probation period. During the period of probation his performance is monitored by the competent authority and his services can be terminated after giving due notice without assigning specific reasons. The learned counsel for the applicant has not been able to prove the allegation of malafide alleged against Respondent No. 3. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the impugned order cannot be termed as illegal.
12. In view of the above, we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 04.11.2022. Hence the O.A No. 1124/2022 is dismissed being devoid of merits. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Shashi
THOLANA SHASHIKALA 2025.07.01 21:43:56-07'00'