Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Girish K vs The Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs ... on 26 October, 2021
-1-
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00231/2021
Tuesday, this the 26th day of October 2021
CO RAM:
HON'BLE Mr.P.MADHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Girish.K., Aged 34 years,
S/o.Kaniram Devalu Naik,
Ex-Assistant Central Intelligence Officer II,
O/o.Assistant Director, Trivandrum Field Unit,
OCR Complex, Keshav Dev Road,
Poojapura P.O., Trivandrum - 695 012.
Permanent Address : Plot No.6, Pooja Colony,
Kusnoor Road, Opp. Telkar Building,
Gulbarga - 585 106, Karnataka. ...Applicant
[By Advocate Mr.P.Anoop (Mulavana)]
versus
1. Union of India represented by Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001.
2. Director, Intelligence Bureau,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, Gate No.7,
Central Secretariat, New Delhi - 110 001.
3. Joint Deputy Director (Establishment),
Intelligence Bureau, B Block,
No.35 Sardar Patel Marg,
Chanyakyapuri, New Delhi - 110 021.
4. Joint Deputy Director (Establishment),
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau,
No.572, Mont Fort House,
Vazhuthacaud, Thycad P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014.
-2-
5. Assistant Director,
Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau,
No.572, Mont Fort House,
Vazhuthacaud, Thycad P.O.,
Thiruvananthapuram - 695 014. ...Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Rathish.H)
This application having been heard on 6 th October 2021, the Tribunal
on 26th October 2021 delivered the following :
ORDER
Per : Mr.K.V.EAPEN, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER This O.A came up before this Tribunal for the first time on 08.06.2021. The applicant prayed for relief to quash the order dated 25.05.2021 passed by Assistant Director, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram terminating his services forthwith from 25.05.2021 (impugned order at Annexure A-6). An interim order for relief was sought to direct the respondents to keep in abeyance all further proceedings pursuant to this order at Annexure A-6 and to provisionally reinstate him back to service, pending consideration of the O.A. The matter of grant of interim relief was considered by this Tribunal on 07.07.2021. It was noted that this Tribunal was not in a position to grant the relief sought for without going into the merits of the matter as it appeared that the services of the applicant were already terminated. The applicant preferred to move an O.P. (CAT) No.44/2021 against this order passed in M.A.No.180/378/2021 filed by him in the O.A. The Hon'ble High Court disposed of this matter on 29.07.2021 taking note of the limited plea of the applicant for ensuring early disposal of the O.A.No.231/2021. It was directed that this Tribunal may -3- take all reasonable endeavours possible in these circumstances to ensure the early final disposal of Ext.P-1 - O.A.No.180/231/2021 without much delay, preferably within the time limit of 6 months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the judgment or within any reasonable time limit that may be appropriately fixed by the Tribunal that may be found by the Tribunal as reasonable and just and taking into account the interest of administration of justice.
2. The applicant had filed this O.A after having his services terminated under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 [CCS (TS) Rules 1965]. The order of termination dated 25.05.2021 was issued by the 5th respondent, Assistant Director/E and Appointing Authority, Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, (SIB) Thiruvananthapuram. The applicant had been working as an Assistant Central Intelligence Officer II/Exe (ACIO II/Exe) in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home Affairs from 03.02.2020 and had been posted to the 5 th respondent's Office vide order dated 11.09.2020. Earlier, he had filed O.A. No.170/1464/2018 before the Bench of this Tribunal at Bengaluru regarding the conduct of the examination, selection results and issuance of appointment letters pertaining to the ACIO II/Exe. Examination 2012 by the Respondents 1-4 of that O.A. He sought for suitable directions to the respondents to declare him eligible and to appoint him as ACIO-II/Exe. on the basis of the 2012 Executive Examination and pay him arrears of salary, grant promotion etc. The O.A was allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru on -4- 29.09.2019 and the order is produced at Annexure A-1 in the present O.A. The respondents then issued an appointment order dated 09.01.2020 produced at Annexure A-2 in the present O.A. As per the appointment order/letter the applicant was appointed as ACIO-II/Exe. in the Intelligence Bureau (IB), Ministry of Home Affairs in a temporary capacity on the basis of Exam-2017. The terms of the appointment included a probation period for two years which could be extended by the appointing authority. It was also indicated at paragraph 2 (i) of the appointment order that during the period of probation or any extension thereof, as the case may be, if the appointing authority was of the opinion that he is not fit for permanent appointment, that authority may discharge him from service. It was further indicated at paragraph 2 (iii) that the appointment was temporary and that an appointment to the post in permanent capacity will depend on various factors governing permanent appointment in such posts in force at that time. The successful completion of training was also a pre-requisite for completion of probation in accordance with DoPT O.M dated 30.10.2014. It was indicated at paragraph 2 (iv) that the appointment may be terminated at any time by a notice of one month given by either side, viz., the appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reason. The appointing authority, however, reserved the right of terminating the services of the appointee forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to him of a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof. Further, in the appointment order, at paragraph 11, it was indicated that the issue of -5- seniority and pay fixation had been taken up with MHA/DoPT and the same would be effected as per the directions of MHA/DoPT as and when received. Till this period the candidate would have no claim for pay parity with respect to his/her juniors who had joined earlier to him/her in the rank of ACIO-II(Exe.). The paragraph 12 (a) also indicated that joining of the candidate would start with a Foundation Course at WZRTC, Jodhpur (Rajasthan) with effect from 03.02.2020.
3. The applicant submits that he accordingly joined the basic training centre at WZRTC, Jodhpur on 03.02.2020 as an ACIO-II and later was sent for advance training in NIA, New Delhi in the last week of April, 2020. As per his appointment letter it was indicated that he had joined the 89 th Batch Phase 12, although he submits that his actual Batch should be 86 th Batch 2012. He submits that he has been therefore denied the opportunity to appear for fast track promotion exams from 2016, in 2018 and 2019. Being aggrieved by this decision, he filed another O.A.No.350/2020 before the Bengaluru Bench on 11.08.2020. He submits that this O.A is pending for final hearing before that Bench. In O.A.No.350/2020 he asked as reliefs, the production of the entire record pertaining to conduct of examination, results and issuance of appointment letters for the ACIO-II(Exe.) Examination 2012 and to declare him as eligible for the post of ACIO-II/ (Exe.) by the Examination 2012. He sought inclusion of his name in the seniority list of 86th Batch of 2012 with all consequential monetary benefits. Further, he sought promotion as per the Fast Track Promotion Exams -6- 2016-17 and the grant of consequential monetary benefits. After he filed this O.A., he was transferred and he joined the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau, Thiruvananthapuram on 07.09.2020. Thereafter, he was posted with Assistant Director, Thiruvananthapuram (Field Unit) of the Subsidiary Intelligence Bureau (the 5th respondent) on 12.09.2020. While working in this office he was served a Notice by the Joint Deputy Director, SIB, Thiruvananthapuram (4th respondent) through the Assistant Director, Thiruvananthapuram (5th respondent) vide Annexure A-3 dated 11.12.2020. The Notice stated that he had enclosed a classified document as an annexure in the O.A.No.350/2020 filed before the C.A.T., Bengaluru Bench without taking permission of the office and that the same was against the guidelines of IB Security Manual. He was directed by the same Notice to submit a explanation by 24.12.2020 as to why action should not be initiated against him for violating guidelines of IB Security Manual. He gave a written reply on 14.12.2020 vide Annexure A-4 in which he stated that he had given a request to the IB Headquarters, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi through the proper channel (Assistant Director, WZRTC, Jodhpur) to get the latest seniority list issued to him. He also later made written requests to Joint Deputy Director, NIA, Dwarka, New Delhi when his training was conducted there. The list was 'issued' to him, he submits, in NIA, Dwarka through the computer system of the library in NIA, Dwarka, New Delhi. However, no copy of receipt of the representations made by him were given to him and he was told that in IB no receipt copy is given to the applications. The aforementioned seniority list (IB Headquarters Memo -7- No.2/seniority(CC)/2020(2)-574) has been produced as an Annexure in the O.A.No.170/350/2020 filed before C.A.T., Bengaluru to establish his seniority and claim for arrears of salary and the matter is now subjudice. It was also indicated in the reply given by him that he had suffered injustice by the department. As regards the following of guidelines of IB Security Manual, he submitted that he had neither been given training on its contents nor was a copy of IB Security Manual issued to him or to other trainees in WZRTC, Jodhpur or NIA, Dwarka. He, therefore, requested for a copy of the IB Security Manual to be supplied to him and that he would be following all the guidelines in letter and spirit.
4. The applicant submits that thereafter he was issued a Memorandum No.1/PF(T)/2020(36)-49 dated 08.01.2021 (not produced). He immediatedly submitted a reply to the aforesaid Memorandum vide Annexure A-5 dated 18.01.2021 wherein he stated that he submitted written requests at WZRTC, Jodhpur and NIA, New Delhi for issuance of latest seniority list of ACIO-II/Exe., fast track promotion circulars for ACIO-II from 2012 till 2020 as well as the general purpose circulars for DPC 2012 to 2019-2020 along with the number of promotees of 2012 batch ACIO-II list, including Scheduled Caste promotees and the number of promotees in the Fast Track Promotion. He reiterated that he was told that no receipt would be given to him for these requests as per the convention in the IB. He submitted copies of the written requests given by him at WZRTC, Jodhpur and NIA, New Delhi and he indicated that the purpose of seeking the -8- seniority list had been clearly mentioned as filing in a service matter case in C.A.T., Bengaluru Bench and National Scheduled Caste Commission (NCSC). He submits that after the Annexure A-5 reply dated 18.01.2021 was given by him to the Joint Deputy Director, SIB, Trivandrum, no further correspondence was made by the Appointing Authority with him regarding Annexure A-3. He then was served the aforesaid letter of termination dated 25.05.2021 issued by the 5th respondent produced at Annexure A-6.
5. The applicant's grounds for relief from the order of termination are that the said order is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as he has not been given any opportunity to defend himself. The provisions of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 cannot be resorted to as a shortcut method. After the Annexure A-3 notice, the Annexure A-4 and Annexure A-5 replies were subsequently given by him; however, no correspondence was made by the authority till the termination order. Further, no show cause notice was issued on him before the termination was done. It is submitted that Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 allows the employees one month's advance notice or pay in lieu of the same before the termination of the service. The respondents have passed the impugned order without even complying with this condition and thus it is liable to be quashed. It is also submitted that the respondents have not followed the specific proforma in Form I and Form II for issue of the Notice of Termination and the order of termination under Rule 5. Since the proforma in Form I was not followed, the termination order is liable to be set aside. The applicant was also not -9- given a proper hearing at any point of time before the termination order was passed. It is also clear that right from the very beginning the applicant had got this job after a lot of hardship, necessitating him to file O.A after O.A., one of which is still pending before the C.A.T., Bengaluru for his promotion, etc. Termination without sufficient reason and without hearing the applicant by taking aid of the proviso of sub rule 1 of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules is absolutely vitiated by malafide, arbitrariness and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. Further, no reason has also been assigned in the impugned order and this is a fatal lacuna, as reasons are the backbone and heartbeat of administrative orders.
6. The applicant has relied on V.P.Ahuja v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2000 3 SCC 239) wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that "when a probational or a person on temporary basis is sought to be removed due to unsatisfactory work, regular enquiry must be held and opportunity must be given to the delinquent probationer and their services cannot be terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be terminated in punitive manner without complying with the principles of natural justice." Further, in Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Ors. (1999 2 SCC 34) the Hon'ble Apex Court has observed by referring the case of Bishan Lal Gupta v. State of Haryana (1978) 1 SCC 202 that "an ordinary inquiry by a show cause might be sufficient for the purpose of deciding whether the probationer could be continued. But where the findings regarding misconduct are arrived at -10- without conducting a regular departmental inquiry, then the termination order will be vitiated." It has also been laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Kranti Association Private Limited & Anr. v. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors. (2010) 9 SCC 496 that reasons even in administrative decisions should be given which are cogent, clear and succinct. The requirement of giving reasons for a decision is of the essence, and is virtually a part of 'due process' in the development of an administrative law. However, in the impugned order at Annexure A-6, no reasons have been assigned.
7. Per contra, the Respondents in their reply statement have stated that the applicant was first shortlisted for the post of ACIO-II/Exe. in the Intelligence Bureau on the basis of the examination held in 2012. His character and antecedent verification had to be conducted by the Department before appointment. There was a doubt about the genuineness of the Scheduled Caste certificate dated 31.01.2009 submitted by him which was issued from the office of Tahsildar Gulbarga (now renamed as Kalaburagi), which declared the applicant as belonging to Lambani Caste. The Tahsildar, Gulbarga informed the IB that the said Caste Certificate was actually not issued from his office. Thus, there were doubts on the integrity of the applicant, following which his candidature for the post of ACIO-II/Exe. in IB was cancelled. After a gap of five years, the applicant filed an O.A.No.170/1464/2018 in the C.A.T., Bengaluru Bench. This issue was finally adjudicated by the C.A.T., Bengaluru Bench and the -11- applicant produced another Scheduled Caste (SC) Certificate dated 26.03.2013, issued from the office of Tahsildar, Kalaburagi. In its judgment dated 17.09.2019, the C.A.T., Bengaluru Bench, directed the respondents to enquire into the genuineness of the applicant's Scheduled Caste (SC) Certificates dated 31.01.2009 and 26.03.2013 and in the case of finding the Caste certificate genuine, to give the appointment to him. After the verification was done, it was found that the SC certificate dated 26.03.2013 was genuine. Inspite of the fact that his original caste (SC) certificate dated 31.01.2009 submitted at the time of interview could not be verified by the certificate issuing authority, the IB offered appointment to the applicant pursuant to the judgment dated 17.09.2019 of C.A.T., Bengaluru. This offer of appointment was issued to the applicant vide the letter dated 09.01.2020. It was clearly mentioned in the offer letter at paragraph No.11 that the issue of seniority and pay fixation had been taken up with the Government and the same would be effected as per their directions as and when received. The Department of Personnel & Training, Government of India (DoPT) later advised in the matter that since no vacancy pertaining to the year 2012 was now available for adjustment of the candidate, his seniority could be considered in that vacancy year against which he would be finally adjusted. The Respondents submit that it is pertinent that the vacancies meant for SC in ACIO-II Exam 2012 and subsequent Exams - 2013 & 2014 had already been filled up by them and thus the applicant was offered appointment only against the vacancy of 2017 examination and his seniority was assigned along with the successful -12- candidates of Exam 2017. The Respondents submit that the applicant had joined IB after accepting all these terms and conditions of the offer of appointment dated 09.01.2020. As such, he was bound to abide by the decisions of the Government in this regard.
8. Inspite of this, it is submitted by the respondents that the applicant filed another O.A.No.170/350/2020 before the C.A.T., Bengaluru where he enclosed a 'Classified/Restricted' document as an Annexure to the said O.A, without the permission of the office, which is against the guidelines of the IB Security Manual. In his explanation he has stated that he had given requests for copy of the said document through proper channel and that he had not been provided IB Security Manual. However, on verification of the records it was found that IB Security Manual was part of the curriculum of the Basic Foundation Course for ACIOs-II/Exe. which the applicant had undergone on induction. Further, an undertaking was submitted by him to the effect that he has read and understood provisions of the Official Secrets (OS) Act 1923, CCS (Conduct) Rules, IB Security Manual etc. which is available in his records.
9. It is submitted by the respondents that the services of the applicant was terminated by the SIB, Trivandrum order dated 25.05.2021 in accordance with sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. As per paragraph 2 (iv) of the offer of appointment issued to him for the post of the ACIO-II/Exe., it had been clearly indicated that the appointment may be -13- terminated at any time by a notice of one month by either side viz., the appointee or the appointing authority, without assigning any reason. The applicant did not appeal the termination order and has, therefore, not availed the opportunity to have his case considered by the Appellate Authority ie., (the Director of IB) within the stipulated period, as per the provisions contained in the CCS (TS) Rules. The respondents further submit that the conduct of the applicant during the probation period had been observed to be inappropriate and that he exhibited behaviour unbecoming of a Government servant. He was found unsuitable for continuance in a sensitive security organization like IB. During his induction training at New Delhi, it is submitted that he had uploaded photographs of a fellow female ACIO-II/Exe on social media with unwarranted comments. He also tried to create a feud on caste lines. There were a lot of verbal complaints from fellow trainees about the behaviour of the applicant. He was found to be carrying mobile phone discreetly to the classroom and talking ill about fellow lady trainees. He was verbally warned on many occasions whenever his behaviour was not found appropriate. It was also observed that the applicant was lackadaisical in his training and was insincere in learning drills of his work. Further, he also sent messages to senior officers seeking recommendations for a favourable posting. Apart from this, it subsequently came to notice that, prior to joining the IB he had served as Panchayat Development Officer in Karnataka where a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him on the charges of insubordination, abusing senior officers and misusing Panchayat funds. He also did not attend duty for a -14- period of one year while he was serving at Srinivas Saradagi Gram Panchayat, District Kalaburgi for which departmental actions were taken against him. All this information about disciplinary enquiries against him were suppressed by him at the time of joining IB. Such misconduct on the part of the applicant indicated his doubtful integrity making him unsuitable for continuance in a sensitive security organization like the IB. As per the proviso to Rule 5 (1) of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, the service of any such temporary 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. Therefore, the contention of the applicant that he needed to be given any further notice is incorrect.
10. In his rejoinder the applicant has submitted that the appointment order was given only after both Caste Certificates submitted by him were found to be genuine. The contention of the respondents in that regard is untrue. Further, the IB Security Manual was not provided to the applicant. In the Basic Foundation Course in WZRTC Jodhpur the IB Security Manual was not taught in the course. No undertaking has been submitted by him regarding IB Security Manual, CCS (Conduct) Rules or OSA Act 1923. The trainees were asked to take notes of class lectures in WZRTC, Jodhpur and -15- these were submitted by all trainees at NIA, Dwarka, New Delhi on the completion of course. None of the notes had the content of IB Security Manual included as it was neither taught nor provided to trainees including the applicant.
11. It is further submitted by the applicant that he had tried to give an application for appeal to Appellate Authority through the Assistant Director, SIB, Trivandrum on 26.05.2021. However, his application "was not taken up". The applicant also tried to meet the appointing authority (as mentioned in termination letter dated 25.05.2021) in SIB, Thiruvananthapuram and submit an application for appeal "but it was not taken up". Hence, the applicant approached this Tribunal. Further, all the allegations made about his training are baseless as no notice was given to him. No allegations had been levelled against the applicant after training and during field posting. He passed the training at WZRTC, Jodhpur and NIA, New Delhi successfully, along with other trainees. He requested in writing for a Karnataka posting on the medical grounds of his father, attaching medical records, through proper channel at NIA, New Delhi. Ten other trainees gave applications on similar grounds along with him. Further, while the applicant was working as a Panchayat Development Officer, he was suspended on false charges on 04.05.2012. Later after completion of a disciplinary inquiry on 16.03.2019 the suspension order regarding absence of duty in Srinivas Saradagi Grama Panchayat was quashed by Hon'ble Karnataka Administrative Tribunal in Application No.6189/2017 dated 17.10.2019. -16- No further departmental enquiry has been initiated from 17.10.2019 till the present day. All these facts were mentioned at the time of joining on 03.02.2020 at WZRTC, Jodhpur with attachments of the quashing order. Thus no facts have been suppressed by him. The original resignation letter submitted to the Panchayat was submitted to WZRTC, Jodhpur at the time of joining on 03.02.2020 with attachments of orders dated 16.03.2019 and order dated 17.10.2019. Hence no material facts were suppressed.
12. We have gone through all the averments as well as heard the learned counsel for the applicant Shri.P.Anoop (Mulavana) and learned counsel for the respondents Shri.Rathish.H. It is seen that the applicant approached the Bengaluru Bench of this Tribunal in two matters on certain administrative issues faced by him, initially with reference to the doubtful issue of his Scheduled Caste Certificate and later with reference to fixation of his seniority as ACIO-II/Exe. which he claims to be entitled to with effect from 2012, instead of 2017. While it appears the issue regarding his caste certificate was finally accepted by the authorities without much further demur, the issue relating to his seniority is still under consideration of the C.A.T., Bengaluru in O.A.No.170/350/2020. However, in this matter under adjudication by this Tribunal we are only to consider whether his termination is legally and otherwise justified or not. The main reason that has led to his termination is apparently the "restricted/classified" annexure which has been attached by him in the O.A.No.170/350/2020 at C.A.T, Bengaluru. The applicant has justified this stating that he had made various -17- requests through proper channels for a copy of the seniority list in order to prove his case in the O.A., but had not been given any official proper response. The respondent on the other hand have held the attaching of this annexure in the O.A as a serious breach of the IB Security Manual as it is a classified/restricted document. They have taken action by terminating his service for violating the guidelines of the Security Manual even though the applicant claims that neither the said Security Manual was provided to him nor was he properly trained on the subject therein. The respondents have however contested these issues.
13. It is first proposed to examine whether the respondents have acted within their legal/jurisdictional powers while taking a decision to terminate the services of the applicant and whether, as per Rules, they are to mention the reasons for the same. It is noted that the respondents have taken the decision to terminate his services under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The said Rules pertain to termination of 'temporary service' of temporary Government servants. The applicant was still under the probation period as an ACIO-II/Exe. (as per the appointment order dated 09.01.2020) while action for termination under these Rules was done. The Government of India decisions under the Rule 5 pertaining to Termination of Temporary Service at paragraph 4 indicates that the reasons should not be mentioned in the termination order when action is taken under Rule 5 to terminate the service of temporary employee. Also, after examining the Termination Order there does not appear to be any illegality or irregularity -18- in the Format of the termination order, which has followed the Format given under Rule 5 at Form II, which is the standard proforma for the order of forthwith termination of service in case where the appointing authority is other than the President of India. Thus Form II proforma is to be used when order of termination is issued under the proviso to Sub-rule 1 of Rule 5, though the applicant has claimed that it should have been under the format in Form I. As mentioned, the respondents have used the format in Form II, which is for forthwith termination, which does not appear to be incorrect. Further, the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 apply to all persons who hold a civil post including all civilians paid from the Defence Services Estimates under the Government of India and who are under the rule making control of the President, but who do not hold a lien or a suspended lien on any post under the Government of India or any State Government. Further, in the Rules "Temporary Service" is defined as the service of a temporary Government servant in a temporary post or officiating service in a permanent post, under the Government of India. The applicant has not contested the applicability of these Rules to him. His appointment order at Annexure A-2 clearly specifies that he is appointed as ACIO-Grade II/Executive in the IB in 'temporary' capacity and can be terminated without any reason. As regards the various judgments brought out by him, we find that he was given notice and an explanation was also taken from him before order of termination was passed. In any case, the reasons and circumstances in each matter are different and no case has been made out that warrants that his rights have been fatally legally compromised. As pointed out earlier -19- under the GOI instructions under Rule 5 no reason should be mentioned when an action is taken to terminate the services of a temporary employee. There were clearly some strong complaints against him which seem to have forced the respondents in the direction of termination of his service.
14. Next, we need to consider whether the apparent misbehaviour and actions which have been alleged against him are sufficient or strong enough to justify an order of termination or whether this was a case of over reach. An argument that can be made on his behalf is that he was fighting the case for his seniority in the C.A.T., Bengaluru and thus attaching a seniority list as an Annexure in an O.A, (even though it is a restricted/classified document under the Security Manual) was done by him without any malintention or mischief. However, this is to be balanced and seen in the perspective that a document carrying the names of the officials of a security agency like the IB has obviously to be treated with care, even while attaching it in a legal matter. Such documents have the potential of falling into the hands of the enemies of the State and have to, by nature, remain classified. The applicant has not hidden the fact that he had asked for the said list by multiple representations/applications to the authorities for giving him a copy of the same. However, it should have been clear to him even after a few months of training that secrecy, discretion and a sense of loyalty to the organization like a security agency are paramount requirements. Once the organization did not give it to him, he should not have procured and attached it by other means. It would be clear even to an outsider that the -20- standards of discretion and secrecy in Security Organizations are much higher than those which are required in a normal Government Department. The expectations placed on employees in such organization are higher and it is their ability to place the organization and its interest over and above anything else that is of primary consideration. It was open to him to use the internal mechanisms in the IB to try and get his seniority fixed after exhausting all the possible due processes, rather than rallying to the Tribunal at the earliest opportunity. There may have not been the need to produce a list of service members of a Security Organization in an outside forum especially as he was not supplied the list, obviously on security considerations when he asked for it. Thus furnishing this document by taking it from internal resources without permission, even if not for malafide reasons, does not absolve the member of a security organization from the larger requirements of his service there. It also does not indicate the right qualities required for an intelligence operative.
15. We also find that the applicant has not also specifically responded to the charges of the misbehaviour relating to his interaction with fellow trainees nor has he responded to the allegations made with regard to talking ill about a lady trainee or insincerity towards his duties. Whatever be the issue the organization has taken the step to discharge him on this basis along with others and in the context of all these reasons, we do not find that there are any extenuating circumstances to not accept this. Right from the beginning he has been having issues with the organization, for which he had -21- to fight the authorities almost from the very onset of his service, but, as stated, this does not outweigh other aspects like his production of a classified/restricted document, behaviour vis-a-vis fellow trainees, his attitude towards the work etc. all of which have not been commented upon by him except to state that these are baseless. As his service was only temporary, the organization seems justified in its decision to terminate his service going by the reports and general reputation.
16. We, therefore, do not find sufficient reason to interfere with the order of termination passed by the respondents. We, therefore, do not allow the O.A and the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dated this the 26th day of October 2021) K.V.EAPEN P.MADHAVAN ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER asp -22- List of Annexures in O.A.No.180/00231/2021
1. Annexure A-1 : True copy of the Order in O.A.(Civil) No.170/01464/2018 before Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench dated 17.09.2019.
2. Annexure A-2 : True copy of the Appointment Letter of the applicant dated 09.01.2020.
3. Annexure A-3 : True copy of the Notice dated 11.12.2020 No.1/PF(t)2020(36)-1650.
4. Annexure A-4 : True copy of the Explanation/Reply given by the applicant dated 14.12.2020.
5. Annexure A-5 : True copy of the Reply dated 18.01.2021 along with written requests dated 11.03.2020 and 03.06.2020.
6. Annexure A-6 : True copy of the Order dated 25.05.2020 No.1/PF/2020(36)-603 issued by the 5th respondent.
_______________________________