Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Gopesh Ranjan vs M/O Defence on 17 February, 2026
Reserved on 30th January, 2026
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
*********
Original Application No. 625 of 2017
Allahabad this the 17th day of February, 2026
Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member-J
Hon'ble Ms. Manju Pandey, Member-A
Gopesh Ranjan, Aged about 29 years, S/o Nand Kishore Prasad Yadav, R/o
63G/6B, Stanley Road, Beli Colony, Allahabad-211002 U.P.
Applicant
By Advocate: Shri N.P. Singh
Vs.
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New
Delhi.
2. General Manager, Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi Chennai-63354
Tamilnadu.
3. Assistant Works Manager Heavy Vehicle Factory, Avadi Chennai,
Tamilnadu.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh
ORDER
Delivered by Hon'ble Mr. Rajnish Kumar Rai, Member (J) Shri N.P. Singh, counsel for the applicant and Shri Raghvendra Pratap Singh, counsel for the respondents are present and heard.
2. By way of the instant O.A. the applicant has challenged the order dated 29.08.2015 passed by the respondent No. 2 terminating the services of applicant. The applicant has prayed for the following relief(s):
-
"(A) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.08.2015 (Annexure A-8 of the original application) will all consequential benefits.
MANISH MEHROTRA (B) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to treat the applicant as regular employee since 30.08.2015 till the date of finalization of the original application. 2 (C) To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to initiate the disciplinary proceedings strictly as per rules.
(D) To issue a order or direction may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.
(E) To award cost to the applicant."
3. The facts of the case, as per pleadings in the O.A., are that the applicant in pursuance of advertisement No. dadp-10201/11/0899/1213 issued in the year 2011, applied for appointment on the post of Storekeeper. An admit card has been issued in favour of the applicant on 10.10.2013 and the admit card contains the photograph and thumb impression and same appears to be checked by the Invigilator. The applicant appeared in the written examination, held on 10.11.2013 and vide letter dated 22.11.2013, the applicant was declared successful in the written examination. In pursuance of result, the respondents have issued the appointment letter dated 26.03.2014 in favour of applicant. In pursuance of appointment letter, the applicant has joined the post of Storekeeper on 09.04.2014. A part-II order dated 20.04.2014 was also issued in the name of applicant. After completion of about 13 months with satisfactory work, the respondents have issued a suspension order dated 20.06.2015 against the applicant indicating that a disciplinary proceeding is contemplated against the applicant. However, in pursuance of the suspension order, the respondents have not initiated any disciplinary proceedings against the applicant as the applicant has never been called for participating in the disciplinary proceedings and no charge sheet was ever served upon the applicant. The respondents have also not paid the subsistence allowance during the pendency of suspension. Surprisingly, without issuing show cause notice and without conducting MANISH MEHROTRA the disciplinary proceedings, the respondents have terminated the services of applicant vide order dated 29.08.2015 in accordance with para 2 C and para-11 of the appointment order. The applicant claims that the 3 termination order is a non-speaking and cryptic order as no reason disclosed while passing the termination order and also no opportunity of hearing was provided to the applicant. It is also submitted that the respondents have failed to demonstrate any concealment or wrong declaration given by the applicant.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the impugned action by terminating the services of vide impugned order dated 29.08.2015 is bad in law and in violation of principle of natural justice. He further submitted that the probationary service are governed under the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 and termination of temporary service/probationer shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given by the Government Servant, as per Rule 5. He submitted that no notice has been served upon the applicant by the respondents with regard to mismatch in thumb impression or signature, as alleged by the respondents in their pleadings. The applicant has relied upon the Judgment and Order dated 03.01.2023 of this Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 524/2017 Shakti Kumar V. Union of India and others wherein the Tribunal relying upon the Judgment of Hon'ble High Court in Writ A No. 2813/2017 Ran Vijay Singh and 34 others V. Union of India and others, has allowed the aforesaid O.A.
5. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The respondents have submitted that the applicant has approached this Tribunal with delay. However, the delay was condoned vide Order dated 08.09.2017 of this Tribunal. The respondents have submitted that the applicant had applied for the post of Storekeeper and after successful in written examination, police verification and character antecedents, the applicant joined the services on 09.04.2014 in pursuance to the MANISH MEHROTRA appointment order dated 26.03.2014. As there was complaint of impersonation, the respondents referred the matter to the finger print expert, Tamilnadu Police and thereafter to Central Forensic Science 4 Laboratory, Hyderabad. The above Lab found that the signature of the person who wrote in the examination and the one, who appeared at the time of joining, is different. Thus, it was proved that the applicant had impersonated in the examination and fraudulently obtained the employment. The respondents have submitted that the present O.A. is not maintainable as it lacks the jurisdiction. The applicant is the resident of Chhotimirzapur Jamalpur Road, Munger, Kasimbazar at Bihar and the cause of action arose at Chennai hence, the O.A. is not maintainable. based on the information submitted by the applicant. It was submitted that the applicant was issued the admit card for appearing in the written examination and it was clearly mentioned at S/No. 16 of the instruction in the Admit Card that this call letter (admit card) does not constitute an offer of appointment. Further in the Admit Card, it was clearly mentioned at S/No. 2 of the instruction that if any short-comings is/are detected even after appointment, his candidature will he cancelled and even after appointment if, any shortcoming is detected, the service will be liable to be terminated. Thus, after having proved that the applicant's thumb impression does not match, he was terminated.
6. The respondents have also submitted that based on the written examination, which was written by someone else who impersonated, which was detected later, this applicant was selected provisionally. The whole case of the respondents is based upon the para-2 and para-16 of the admit card issued in favour of the applicant. Counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a clear case of impersonation as per finger print expert and hand writing expert, both have mismatched the thumb impression as well as signature of the applicant who had reported for duty and in such a situation, the respondents have no other option except to terminate the services of a probationer i.e. applicant under the MANISH MEHROTRA terms and conditions of the offer of appointment. Hence, the respondents have prayed for dismissal of the O.A. 5
7. Counsel for the applicant has filed the rejoinder affidavit reiterating the facts, already stated in the O.A.
8. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record. Counsel for the applicant has filed the Written Argument.
9. After perusal of pleadings, it appears that the applicant has challenged the impugned order dated 29.08.2015 passed by respondent No. 2, terminating the services of the applicant. The applicant, in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Storekeeper, had applied and an Admit Card dated 10.10.2013 has been issued in his favour. Thereafter, the applicant appeared in the Written Examination held on 10.11.2013 and he was declared successful vide letter dated 22.11.2013. In pursuance of appointment letter dated 26.03.2014, the applicant joined the post of Storekeeper on 09.04.2014. After completion of 13 months satisfactory job, the respondents have passed the suspension order dated 20.06.2015 against the applicant. However, the respondents without conducting the disciplinary proceeding or giving opportunity of hearing to the applicant, has passed the termination order dated 29.08.2015. The applicant has challenged the impugned termination order on the ground that the same has been passed without giving any show cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the applicant. Counsel for the applicant submitted that during the period of suspension or so called inquiry proceeding, the respondents have not paid the subsistence allowed to the applicant. The applicant's counsel further submitted that the impugned order is hit by article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the termination order has been passed on the basis of para-2 C and para-11 of the appointment order MANISH MEHROTRA which is in violation of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
However, the respondents have failed to demonstrate any concealment and wrong declaration given by the applicant, as per aforesaid para-11 of 6 the appointment order. The respondents have also failed to furnish any charge memo in continuation of suspension order. Counsel for the applicant also challenged the termination order on the ground that the same is a non speaking and cryptic order without disclosing the reason behind the termination order. On the other hand, counsel for the respondents submitted that as there was complaint of impersonation, the respondents referred the matter to the Finger Print Expert, Tamilnadu Police and thereafter to Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad. The above Lab found that the signature of the person who wrote in the examination and the one, who appeared in the examination, is different. Thus, it was proved that the applicant had impersonated in the examination and fraudulently obtained the employment. The whole case of the respondents is also based upon the para-2 and para-16 of the admit card as well as para-2 (C) and 11 of the appointment order issued in favour of the applicant Learned counsel for the respondents argued that appointment of the applicant was purely on temporary basis and until further orders. It is also argued that it is clearly mentioned in the appointment order that services of the applicant may be terminated at any time during the probationary period by either side without notice. The relevant part of the Rule 5 is quoted herein below: -
"5. Termination of temporary service. (1)(a) The services of a temporary Government Servant 2[* * *] shall be liable to termination at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Government Servant to the appointing authority or by the appointing authority to the Government Servant;
(b) the period of such notice shall be one month:
Provided that the services of any such Government Servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of 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 MANISH MEHROTRA notice falls short of one month.7
Note. The following procedure shall be adopted by the appointing authority while serving notice on such Government Servant under clause
(a)-
(1) The notice shall be delivered or tendered to the Government Servant in person.
(ii) Where personal service is not practicable, the notice shall be served on such Government Servant by registered post acknow-ledgment due at the address of the Government Servant available with the Appointing Authority.
(iii) If the notice sent by registered post is returned unserved it shall be published in the Official Gazette and upon such publication, it shall be deemed to have been personally served on such Government Servant on the date it was published in the Official Gazette."
10. From the perusal of above rule position, it is clear that the provision for giving a notice in writing is mandatory and in the instant case, Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 has not been followed. Moreover, the case of applicant is covered with the case of Ran Vijay Singh and 34 others Vs. Union of India and others (supra) as well as Order in the case of Shakti Kumar v. Union of India and others (O.A. No. 524/2017) [supra], relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant. The contention of respondents that it is a clear case of impersonation as the department has followed the process of termination in accordance with the extant rules as well as terms and conditions of the notification and both experts i.e. finger print expert and handwriting expert have given opinion of mismatching of thumb impression and handwriting/signatures. In such a situation, the department has taken a lenient view and passed the impugned order which is simplicitor in nature and does not have any stigmatic effect for his future career looking into to his age, education etc.
11. From the above, it is apparent that a probationer has no lien on the MANISH MEHROTRA job, his/her service can be terminated at the discretion of the employer.
It is advisable that while terminating the services of a probationer, the language should be simple, unambiguous and non-stigmatic. It will be 8 appropriate to state that in accordance with the terms and condition of the appointment, the probationary services are terminated with immediate effect, or, as the case may be.
12. For the reasons stated herein above and in the light of the observations made by Hon'ble High Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) as well as of the Tribunal in O.A. No. 524/2017 and CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, we are of the opinion to allow the O.A. Accordingly, the O.A. is allowed. Impugned order dated 29.08.2015 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant within three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this Order. However, it is made clear that this Order shall not preclude the respondents from taking fresh decision in the matter in accordance with Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 after giving show cause notice, stating the reasons for termination. However, it is made clear that the order so passed, if any, under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 shall be simplicitor and shall not be stigmatic to the applicant. No order as to costs. All the pending Misc. Applications shall be deemed to have been disposed of.
(Manju Pandey) (Rajnish Kumar Rai)
Member (Admn.) Member (Judicial)
/M.M/
MANISH MEHROTRA