Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Arvind Verma vs Comptroller And Auditor-General Of ... on 7 August, 2025
1
OA.No.643/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH, HYDERABAD
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO.021/00643/2019
ORDER RESERVED ON 07.07.2025
DATE OF ORDER: 07.08.2025
HON'BLE DR. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Arvind Verma, S/o. Sri Kishan Lal Verma
Aged about 30 years
Occ: Data Entry Operator
O/o. Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004. .....Applicant
(By Advocate Dr. A.Raghu Kumar)
Vs.
1. Union of India rep by the
Comptroller and Auditor General
9, Deendayal Upadyay Marg
New Delhi - 1.
2. The Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004.
3. The Senior Deputy Accountant General (Admn)
O/o. Principal Accountant General (Audit)
Telangana, Saifabad, Hyderabad - 500004. ....Respondents
(By Advocate Smt. Rachna Kumari, SC for CAG)
*****
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING,
PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET=
NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD,
Phone=
PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa
a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER=
35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4
1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN=
PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
SANDHYA
Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
2
OA.No.643/2019
ORDER
PER: HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking the following relief:
".... to call for the records pertaining to 3rd respondent orders in Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AK/2019-20/21 dated 28.06.2019 and Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/22 dated 28.06.2019 terminating the services of the applicant from 12.07.2019, Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/30 dated 28.06.2019 treating the period of absence as Dies-non for all purposes without break in service and the 2nd respondent order in Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/48 dated 11.07.2019 rejecting the appeal of the applicant and quash and set aside the same as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and rules on the subject matter in the interest of justice, and be pleased to pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
2. The facts of the case, in a nutshell, as submitted by the applicant, are as follows:
i. The OA is filed by the applicant challenging the orders of the 3rd Respondent, vide Lr.Nos.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AK/2019- 20/21, and Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/22, both dated 28.06.2019, terminating the services of the applicant from 12.07.2019 and also Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-
20/30, dated 28.06.2019, treating the period of absence as Dies-non for all purposes without break in service, in terms of FR-17(1) read with GOID (1) under FR-18 and the order of the 2nd Respondent, in Lr.No. PAG (Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/48, dated 11.07.2019, rejecting the appeal of the applicant.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 3 OA.No.643/2019 ii. It is submitted that the applicant successfully qualified the Combined Higher Secondary Level Examination held by the Staff Selection Commission, in the year 2014, and was selected for the post of Data Entry Operator in Pay band-I of Rs.5200-20200 with GP of Rs.2400, plus the usual allowances. The applicant was allotted to the office of the Principal Accountant General (G&SSA), Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, Hyderabad, and was offered appointment to the post of 2nd Data Entry Operator in the Respondent Office, vide PAG (G&SSA) /Admn-I /Recruitment /CHSL-2014 /F-107 /2015-16 /141, dt.20.05.2016. On accepting the offer of appointment, he was appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator. As per the appointment order, dt.02.06.2016, the applicant was to be on probation for a period of two years. His confirmation was subject to his being considered fit in all respects for permanent retention in the service. The period of probation was completed by 01.06.2018 and, as per the law on the subject, the applicant's services were deemed to have been confirmed, w.e.f. 02.06.2018.
iii. While the matter stood thus, the applicant was forced to go on medical leave for 34 days, from 30.11.2018 to 02.01.2019, for 19 days from 04.02.2019 to 22.02.2019, for 5 days from 11.03.2019 to 15.03.2019, for 8 days from 20.03.2019 to 27.03.2019 and for 15 days from 26.04.2019 to 10.05.2019. The applicant has enclosed copies of his EL applications and the correspondence on the subject.
iv. According to the applicant, the correspondence, dt.12.12.2018, shows that the respondents considered the absence of the applicant as Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 4 OA.No.643/2019 without proper sanction of leave and proposed to take disciplinary action against him. Such notice is available on the file in FAW-II/TS, dt.20.12.2018, and, dt.11.01.2019. Further, it may be seen that some of the leaves were originally sanctioned at the relevant point of time, as per Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/FAW-TS-II/Genl/2019-20, dt.09.04.2019. However, the respondents have considered these sanctioned parts of leave also as unauthorized absence and misconduct. v. While the matter stood thus, the respondents issued Memo No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/BC-I/AV/2019-20/19, dt.12.06.2019, in the form of a notice to the applicant, proposing to terminate his services by invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. The applicant submitted his representation against the same, explaining the reasons for his availing leave, vide his representation, dt.20.06.2019. However, the respondents issued the 1st impugned order, vide Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AK/2019- 20/21, dt.28.06.2019, terminating the services of the applicant from the date of expiry of the period of one month from the date on which the notice was served on him, i.e., 12.06.2019. Thus, the date of termination was declared as 12.07.2019.
vi. It is the contention of the applicant that it appears that the respondents had taken the decision already and, only with a view to appear as if it is an innocuous order, passed the impugned orders. Moreover, the respondents have also issued the third impugned order, holding the period of absence from 30.11.2018 to 02.01.2019 (for 34 days), from 04.02.2019 to 22.02.2019 (for 19 days), from 11.03.2019 to Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 5 OA.No.643/2019 15.03.2019 (for 05 days) from 20.03.2019 to 27.03.2019 (for 8 days) and from 26.04.2019 to 10.05.2019 (for 15 days) as dies-non, ignoring the fact that some of the spells were already sanctioned by the competent authority. It may be seen from the correspondence of the respondents that the leave from 04.02.2019 to 22.02.2019 was sanctioned, but the same was treated as unauthorized absence and, similarly, from 11.03.2019 to 15.03.2019 was also sanctioned, but treated as unauthorized.
vii. The applicant submitted an appeal to the 2nd Respondent, vide his representation, dt.04.07.2019, but the same was also rejected by the 2nd Respondent, through the 4th impugned order vide Lr.No.PAG (Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/48, dt.11.07.2019.
viii. It is further submitted that the very premise of the action of the respondents is based on the allegation that the applicant was unauthorizedly absent for about 81 days, spreading over about five spells. The applicant states that he had applied for leave, but the same was pending for sanction and, in one case, leave was duly sanctioned also. Such premise can, at the most, lead to appropriate disciplinary proceedings, befitting the gravity of the misconduct. Respondents cannot terminate the services of the applicant. It is alleged that the respondents have acted on the ground of misconduct and have passed the innocuous looking order, invoking Rule 5 of the CCS(TS) Rules, 1965, which is absolutely malicious and colourable exercise of power.
Termination of the services of a government servant on the ground of Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 6 OA.No.643/2019 such absence, which is followed by proper leave applications, cannot be justified in terms of law.
3. The grounds raised for relief, by the applicant, include the following:
i. The orders in Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AK/2019-20/21, dated 28.06.2019, and Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019- 20/22, dated 28.06.2019, terminating the services of the applicant, Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/30, dated 28.06.2019, treating the period of absence as Dies-non for all purposes without break in service and the order of the 2nd Respondent in Lr.No.PAG(Audit)/Legal Cell/DC-I/AV/2019-20/48, dated 11.07.2019, rejecting the appeal of the applicant, are illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution.
ii. The appointment order of the applicant stipulates that the applicant is on probation for a period of two years w.e.f. 02.06.2016, which would be completed by 01.06.2018. The respondents have not passed any order extending the probation period within the two years, as per the rules and the law on the subject. As such, the applicant is deemed to have completed his probation by 01.06.2018 and shall be deemed to be a regular employee w.e.f. 02.06.2018. According to him, the Apex Court has held that, unless there is a specific act on the part of the respondents indicating their intention to extend the probation before the completion of the probation period and an order is passed to that extent with reasons, the respondents are not right in treating the applicant as a temporary servant and invoking Rule 5 of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 7 OA.No.643/2019 iii. The applicant pleads that he was undergoing some health issues and was forced to be absent on medical advice, which is neither wilful nor intentional. Such kind of actions cannot be treated as unauthorized absence, when it was duly followed by an appropriate request for sanction of leave. Even though leave is not a right of a government servant, it cannot be denied without proper administrative reasons. Further, when the absence cannot be treated as wilful, termination of the services of a government servant on the ground of such absence, which is followed by proper leave applications, cannot be justified in terms of law.
iv. It is also submitted that even a temporary government servant/adhoc employee/officiating employee has the protection of Article 311 and, as such, when the respondents considered his absence as misconduct and have, accordingly, noted in their files dealing with the matter to the extent of initiating disciplinary proceedings, they cannot turn around and invoke the provisions of Rule 5 of the CCS(TS) Rules, as it amounts to colourable exercise of power. Hence, the OA.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has relied upon the judgment, dt.22.10.2013, of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Registrar General High Court of Gujarat & another vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti in Civil Appeal No.9346 of 2013.
5. On notice, Respondents have put in appearance through their Counsel and filed their reply statement. The gist of the submissions of the respondents is as follows -
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 8 OA.No.643/2019 i. The applicant, Sri Arvind Verma, was appointed to the post of Data Entry Operator w.e.f. 02.06.2016 FN. As per the terms and conditions of the offer of appointment as well as the appointment order (Para-
viii), he had to pass the Regional Language Test in Telugu, during the period of probation. Accordingly, he was nominated to the Telugu Introductory Course at the Telugu Akademi, vide Office Order No.294, dt.24.01.2017, wherein it ws clearly stated that officials have to mandatorily pass the Telugu test for consideration of declaration of their probation. Since the applicant has not passed the regional language test till date, his probation has not been declared yet and he is covered under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. This fact has been confirmed by the applicant in his representation, dt.20.06.2019, addressed to the Sr.Deputy Accountant General (Admn).
ii. Further, one Sri Devendra Kumar, a shopkeeper in the AG Colony, had submitted a complaint against the applicant, who was residing at the AG's Office Staff Quarters, in August, 2018, for creating nuisance at his shop in an inebriated condition. Explanation was sought from the applicant, vide memorandum, dt.29.08.2018, for creating nuisance in a public place. The applicant submitted an explanation that the altercation had broken out as the shopkeeper had charged an extra Re.1/-, over and above the MRP of a milk packet, and pleaded that he never resorted to any physical assault on the said Devendra Kumar.
The applicant was warned, vide memorandum, dt.25.09.2018, to be Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 9 OA.No.643/2019 more careful, in future, and desist from indulging in any activity, unbecoming of a government servant.
iii. Thereafter, the applicant absented himself from his office duties from 30.11.2018 to 02.01.2019, without prior intimation and sanction of leave from the competent authority, violating the provisions of the Manual of General Procedure {(MGP for short) Paras 2.52 -
Permission to leave Headquarters and 2.60 - Prior sanction of leave}.
A recall memo, dt.12.12.2018, was issued to the applicant at his AG Office Staff Quarters address, with direction to report for duty on or before 17.12.2018. As there was no response from the applicant to this memo, another recall memo, dt.26.12.2018, was issued to him to report for duty, within 3 days, from the date of receipt of the memo.
The second memo was addressed to his permanent address at New Delhi. The applicant reported for duty on 03.01.2019 and submitted a leave application for EOL for his unauthorized absence from duty from 30.11.2018 to 02.01.2019. The applicant submitted his explanation, dt.09.01.2019, to the SAO/FAW(GSS) Section stating that he was suffering from enteric fever from 30.11.2018 and, as soon as he recovered, he joined duty on 03.01.2019.
iv. A memorandum, dt.12.02.2019, was issued to the official from the Legal Cell, calling for his explanation for remaining absent from official duties and also leaving headquarters without prior and proper sanction. As the applicant did not respond, another memorandum, dt.11.03.2019, was issued to the applicant, to which he submitted his reply, dt.18.03.2019, stating that, owing to communication issue, he Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 10 OA.No.643/2019 opted for treatment at a private hospital, viz., Alnoor General and Maternity Hospital, from 30.11.2018 to 15.12.2019, and on the 16th December, 2018, he left for his native place, Delhi, for further treatment at M/s. Khera Hospital. The applicant submitted medical prescription issued by the Alnoor Maternity and General Hospital, Hyderabad, and M/s. Khera Hospital, New Delhi, for his purported ailment. After examining the records submitted by the applicant, the office noticed several discrepancies, like not opting for CGHS, which is present within the premises of the AG Office Staff Quarters, where the applicant was residing and visiting a private hospital (Alnoor General Maternity Hospital), and citing language as hindrance in the CGHS.
v. The reply submitted by the applicant is contrary to Rule 19 (ii) of the CCS(Leave) Rules. As sub-rule(ii) of Rule 19 clearly states that the leave application, made by a non-gazetted government servant, shall be accompanied by a Medical Certificate in Form 4 given by the CGHS Dispensary, if such a government servant is a CGHS beneficiary. In the instant case, the official was a CGHS beneficiary and the CGHS Dispensary was available within the premises of the AG Office Staff Quarters, where the applicant had his residence. The reason cited by the applicant for not availing the CGHS facility was communication problem (language). This cannot be accepted as the doctors in the CGHS are well qualified and conversant with English and Hindi.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 11 OA.No.643/2019 vi. Though the applicant was given recall memos on previous occasions, he again absented himself from duty from 04.02.2019 without prior sanction of leave and recall memo, dt.20.02.2019, was issued with directions to report for duty within 3 days of receipt of the memo. The applicant reported for duty on 25.02.2019, but did not submit any explanation. He absented himself again from 11.03.2019, for which another memorandum, dt.13.03.2019, was issued by the SAO/FAW, wherein explanation for the earlier memorandum was also called for. vii. It is submitted that the SAO/FAW, in rush of work had sanctioned, inadvertently, HPL (04.02.2019 to 22.02.2019) and EL (11.03.2019 to 15.03.2019) whereas the authority competent to sanction or decide on the leave applied for by any official, after the case is referred to the Legal Cell, is the Sr.DAG(A) and not the Branch Officers. With the matter of previous spells of leave still pending before the Sr.DAG(A), the applicant again proceeded on leave from 29.04.2019 to 10.05.2019 and forwarded an application to the AAO of the Section stating that he had met with an accident on 26.04.2019 and, hence, left for New Delhi for treatment and requested to grant permission to leave headquarters.
viii. According to the Respondents, any permission to leave headquarters has to be obtained prior to leaving the headquarters and not after leaving the headquarters. Further, the applicant neither submitted leave application in the prescribed format, i.e., Form-I, to the competent authority nor specified the nature of leave he wanted to utilize.
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYAPANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 12 OA.No.643/2019 ix. A memorandum, dt.06.05.2019, was issued to the applicant calling for his explanation for discrepancies observed in the medical documents submitted by him for the period of unauthorized absence in various spells. But, the applicant again abstained from attending to official duties from 26.04.2019. The applicant submitted his explanation to the memorandum, dt.06.05.2019, on 17.05.2019, and also furnished air tickets for the journey on 16.12.2018 from Hyderabad to New Delhi and on 03.01.2019 for the journey from New Delhi to Hyderabad. He also submitted copies of medical documents obtained from St.Theresa's Hospital, Hyderabad. On perusal of the documents, it was observed that the boarding time of the flight taken by the applicant from New Delhi, on 03.01.2019, was 6.20 AM, whereas the fitness certificate, issued by M/s. Khera Hospital, New Delhi, was also dated 03.01.2019. This caused doubts on the genuineness of the certificate submitted by him.
x. Certificates were ostensibly obtained by the applicant to cover up the spells of unauthorized absence and, on all the occasions, he submitted leave applications for post facto sanction. Further, no leave application was submitted by the applicant for the period from 29.04.2019 to 10.05.2019. The above acts of the official convinced the competent authority that the absence on the part of the official was wilful and intentional and, hence, the authority decided to terminate the services of the applicant and issued notice of termination, under Rule 5(1) of the CCS(TS) Rules, 1965, on 12.06.2019. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 13 OA.No.643/2019 xi. It is also submitted that the applicant has concealed the fact that his period of probation was extended from 01.06.2018 to 01.06.2019, vide Office Order No.174, dt.03.09.2018, as the applicant had not passed the regional language test (Telugu), which is mandatory for every Central Government employee for declaring his probation and confirming his service in the Department. This was clearly mentioned in Office Order No.294, dt.24.01.2017, while nominating the applicant for Introductory Course in Telugu. Till date, the applicant has not fulfilled the criteria mentioned vide paras 4 and 7 in the offer of appointment, dt.20.05.2016. Hence, the applicant cannot be considered to have completed his period of probation. The official is still under probation and the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, are very much applicable to him.
xii. The following rule portion has been cited by the respondents in respect of leave:
"Para 2.20 of the Manual of General Procedure clearly prescribed that a non-gazetted officer should obtain permission of the Head of the Office in which they are serving, before leaving Headquarters during holidays.
Further, para 2.60 of the said Manual stipulates that any member of the establishment who absents himself from duty without definite approval of his branch officer does so at his own risk."
xiii. The applicant cannot assume that leave will be sanctioned to cover his absence as a matter of course. On all the occasions, the applicant chose to remain absent from office duties on his own will and left. Though the applicant had ample time to move from one place to another of his choice, he did not care to inform his office Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 14 OA.No.643/2019 about his whereabouts till the time the office enquired about him through recall memorandums sent to his permanent address at New Delhi. All the time, the official applied for post-facto sanction of leave, by flouting the prescribed rules.
xiv. Respondents have further stated that, for the unauthorised absence from office duties, in various spells, for 81 days, in all, the applicant could not produce any convincing evidence to support his claim of prolonged illness and, hence, the period of absence was treated as 'Dies-non', which is not a penalty but merely an administrative order of the Competent Authority for consideration/regularisation of the period of absence from headquarters, before the date of termination of his services. xv. Regarding sanctioning of leave (HPL for 19 days from 04.02.2019 to 22.02.2019 and EL for 05 days from 11.03.2019 to 15.03.2019), the branch officer concerned, vide explanation, dt.26.04.2019, submitted that the leave applications of the official were sanctioned inadvertently due to work pressure and the same could be condoned. The fact of sanctioning the leave inadvertently by SAO/FAW was communicated to the applicant through memorandum, dt.06.05.2019. Hence, it is incorrect on the part of the employee to assume that his leave was sanctioned. xvi. Due to the reasons mentioned above, along with other spells of unauthorised absence, these two spells for 19 days and 05 days were also treated as 'Dies-non'. For the medical certificate obtained on 03.01.2019, it is hard to believe that before boarding Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 15 OA.No.643/2019 an Air India flight, at 6.20 AM, on 03.01.2019, the doctor concerned examined the applicant and issued a medical fitness certificate. Further, the said fitness certificate is also not as per the standard proforma of the CCS(Leave) Rules, 1972. The medical fitness certificate was not submitted on the date of joining duty, i.e., 03.01.2019 and the same was submitted on a later date with the submission that in a hurry he forgot to carry the said certificate which was later forwarded to him by his parents through courier service. The medical certificates/medical fitness certificates submitted by the official were not genuine but manipulated to suit his convenience. Hence, the spells of his absence were treated as dies-non. The official had also been warned, vide memorandum, dt.25.09.2018, on earlier occasion, for indulging in the act of physical assault on a shopowner in the AG Colony. xvii. The official was cautioned that he was a temporary government servant and his services may be terminated under Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services), Rules, 1965, vide memorandum, dt.06.05.2019, but he did not mend his ways and remained absent from official duties, without obtaining prior approval from the competent authority and, further, left the headquarters without seeking permission to do so. It is strange that during the course of his purported treatment, the official could move from his residence at the AG's Office Staff Quarters to a clinic, other than the CGHS Dispensary which is very much located within the premises of the Quarters, and also proceed to his native place - New Delhi, but Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 16 OA.No.643/2019 could not gather strength to inform his superiors about his ill health before absenting from office.
xviii. On being served notice for termination of service, vide order, dt.12.06.2019, the applicant submitted a representation, vide letter, dt.20.06.2019, to the disciplinary authority, i.e., Sr.DAG (Admn), and the same was considered by the disciplinary authority but not acceded to. After this, the applicant submitted his appeal, dt.04.07.2019, to the Appellate Authority, i.e., the Principal Accountant General (Audit), 2nd Respondent, to revoke the order of termination. The Appellate Authority, after carefully examining all the facts on record as well as the past conduct of the applicant and, after giving him personal hearing, on 05.07.2019, by exercising her power under Rule 5 (2) (a) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, confirmed, vide letter, dt.11.07.2019, the action taken by the Appointing Authority, in terminating the services of the applicant, w.e.f. 12.07.2019 (FN), under Rule 5 (1) (a) of the CCS(TS) Rules, 1965.
xix. According to the respondents, since the official was covered by the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, action by initiating disciplinary proceedings was not considered and order for termination of his services was issued. Due process, as per the provisions under the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, was observed, in keeping with the principles of natural justice. Hence, the act of the Appointing Authority is not malicious and colourable exercise of power, as claimed in the instant OA. It is very much in Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 17 OA.No.643/2019 line with the judgments in Civil Writ Petition No.5921/93 (Kanwar Singh vs. UOI & Ors) and case No.16931 of 2015 (Amarjeet Kumar vs. The Union of India & Others). xx. It is contended that termination of services of the applicant under Rule 5 (1) of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 does not amount to a penalty within the meaning of the CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965, and the order of the Appointing Authority to terminate the services of the official is innocuous. In the order passed by the Apex Court, in the case of Kanwar Singh vs. Union of India, on 11.04.1994, it is held that, "These are the cases of termination simpliciter under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 which do not envisage any constitutional safeguard which are admissible to permanent employee of the Central Government under Article 311 (2) of the Constitution of India. Hence, an order of termination of the petitioner cannot be interpreted as punitive or vindictive nor it can be alleged to be malafide and therefore, the petitioners are not entitled to assail the same before this Court."
Further, the official is covered under the ambit of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, and, under this rule, his services are temporary in character, for which he does not have any right to the post. There is no violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India and there is also no violation of the principles of natural justice.
xxi. According to the Respondents, the attempt by the applicant to link the termination of his service with his unauthorised absence is wrong. Termination of his services also has no relation with his illness. The conduct of the official and his negligence in applying for leave in advance and also for permission to leave headquarters Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 18 OA.No.643/2019 has resulted in convincing the appointing authority that it is a fit case for terminating his services. Hence, the termination of services of the official has nothing to do against his purported prolonged illness/health issues. Vide para 15, Rajasthan High Court has opined in Kanwar Singh vs. UOI and Ors., that -
".....there is nothing arbitrary, unreasonable or unconscionable and nor there is any violation of the principle of 'audi alteram partem rule' or the directive principle of State policy inasmuch as we are dealing herewith the cases of temporary Government servants who cannot be equated with permanent employees of the Central Government and hence, there can be no equation between the two. The temporary Government servant unless he is confirmed always stands the risk of facing termination from service since his conduct is put on the test of judgment by his superiors who reserve the right of watching his conduct during the period of probation till such employee is confirmed in service."
The same judgment stated that the Apex Court has consistently taken the view that the order of termination simpliciter does not amount to an order of removal from service and, thus, as such, it is not open to challenge.
xxii. It is further argued that case No.16931 of 2015 (Amarjeet Kumar vs. The Union of India & Others) was filed by the petitioner for setting aside the order, dt.24.07.2015, whereby the Inspector General of Police had rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against notice of termination served upon the petitioner for his unauthorised absence, treating it as a grave misconduct on the part of the petitioner, which was unbecoming of a member of a disciplined force. Keeping in view the temporary nature of service, the notice of termination had been issued simpliciter, without attaching any stigma. In the judgment, dt.24.07.2018, the High Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 19 OA.No.643/2019 Court of Judicature at Patna, in Civil Writ Jurisdiction, upheld the termination order issued to Amarjeet Kumar and also rejection of his appeal by the Inspector General of Police, since the last opportunity under the Rule 5(2) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, had been afforded to the petitioner. No further order could be passed directing the respondents to consider his case as the final order had been passed under Rule 5(2)(a) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. Rule 5 (1) (a) of the CCS(TS) Rules, 1965 stipulates that, "The services of a temporary Government servant 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". Further, GOID 4 under Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, stipulates that, "When action is taken under Rule 5 to terminate the services of a temporary employee, the order of termination, which should be passed by the Appointing Authority, should not mention the reasons for such termination."
The service of the applicant was merely terminated as he was still on probation and was covered under the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. He was not removed/dismissed from service, as a matter of punishment. Mere termination of service, per se, does not amount to punishment and the same cannot be challenged before the Court of Law, as discussed in the cases above. For the above reasons, Respondents have prayed to dismiss the OA with costs as devoid of merits.
6. Heard learned counsels for both the parties and perused the material on record. Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 20 OA.No.643/2019
7. Perusal of the records shows that the applicant was appointed, vide order, dt 02.06.2016. He was posted at the FAW on 13.06.2016. His services were terminated w.e.f. 12.07.2019 (forenoon). In the space of 3 years, he was absent from duties for 81 days, in different spells, which were subsequently treated as Dies Non. His appointment order stipulated that he would be under probation for a period of two years, and his appointment was purely temporary and was to be governed under the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. He was supposed to pass the regional language (Telugu) test during his probation which he could not do. In Office Order No. 294, dt. 24.01.2017, nominating the applicant along with others for the Introductory Course in Telugu at the Telugu Akademi, it was reiterated that -
"It is further informed that as per DoPT O.M.No.28020/1/2010-Estt (C) dated 21.07.2014, under no circumstance shall probation period be extended for more than double the normal period, i.e., probation cannot be extended beyond 4 years.
Officials have to mandatorily pass in the Telugu Test for consideration of declaration of their probation"
He has mentioned in his reply to the notice, dated 12.06.2019, as follows -
"Due to personal problems and health issues, I could not pass the Telugu exam. I cleared paper II and viva. I will definitely clear Telugu exam in next time."
Thus, even though, formal order extending his probation for one year was issued on 03.09.2018, there is no doubt that the applicant continued as a temporary employee on account of non-declaration of his probation.
8. It is strange that the applicant has flouted the leave rules so brazenly by repeatedly proceeding on "Leave" without prior sanction and also left the headquarters without permission, in spite of all the memos and recall memos Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 21 OA.No.643/2019 and warning. He has argued that his unauthorised absence has to be condoned as "it was duly followed by an appropriate request by sanction of leave". This itself exposes his irresponsible and undisciplined attitude. A beginner could be forgiven for one odd mistake which he is willing to rectify, but, the applicant, despite being a probationer, continued to flout the rules and orders and kept playing truant.
9. As regards the judgment of the Apex Court in Registrar General High Court of Gujarat & another vs. Jayshree Chamanlal Buddhbhatti, which is cited on behalf of the applicant, the facts and circumstances in that case are totally different from those in the present OA and, hence, it does not come to the rescue of the applicant. As per the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, we find that the respondents have passed an order of termination simpliciter which is not punitive and also does not attach any stigma to the applicant - a temporary employee. Further, in the light of the Apex Court judgments in the cases of Kanwar Singh and Amarjeet Kumar, supra, we find no grounds to interfere with the order of termination of the services of the applicant. The order of rejection of his representation against termination as well as the order declaring the period of his unauthorised absence as dies-non are also found to be well justified and as per the applicable rules cited above.
10. The OA is, therefore, dismissed. Pending MAs, if any, stand closed. No order as to costs.
(Varun Sindhu Kul Kaumudi) (Dr. Lata Baswaraj Patne)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
07.08.2025
/ps/
Digitally signed by PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA
PANDIRLA DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, PostalCode=500004, L=Hyderabad, S=Telangana, STREET= NO 5-10-193 1ST FLOOR HACA BHAWAN HYDERABAD, Phone= PALLI ec4f909cdddc28931061bef733616fb5c65493d179209a8c2cfa a0a510742c22, SERIALNUMBER= 35e33c0d6e61374d1b11744a97265175a0ceaf8ba7768772f4 1813a4eb590082, [email protected], CN= PANDIRLAPALLI SANDHYA SANDHYA Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Location:
Date: 2025.08.13 16:48:24+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0