U.O.I versus A.P. BAJPAI AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 1 S.C.R. 429 · Decided: 20-01-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

U.0.1. 
A 
v. 
A.P. BAJPAI AND ORS. 
JANUARY 20, 2003 
[SHIVARAJ V. PATIL AND H.K. SEMA, JJ.) 
B 
Service Law: 
Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1966; Section 5(1): 
Termination of Services of temporary employee-On ground of negligence C 
and dereliction of duty-Order of termination simpliciter-Challenge to-Set 
aside by Central Administrative Tribunal-On appeal, Held: since factors 
assessing suitability of the incumbent to continue in service or otherwise were 
stated in the counter affidavit as grounds for termination, finding of Tribunal 
that termination order involved stigma attached to incumbent is erroneous. D 
Reslll!ndent No.I was appointed as a temporary Assistant Central 
Intelligence Officer-II in the Intelligence Bureau. His services were 
terminated on the ground of negligence and dereliction of duty. His 
representation against the order of termination was rejected by the 
competent authority. Central Administrative Tribunal set aside the E 
termination order. Hence the present appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant, it was contended that the servi~es of 
Respondent No. I were terminated by passing an order of termination 
simpliciter under the provision of Central Civil Services (Temporary 
Service) Rules, on the ground of negligence and dereliction of duty and p· 
not on the ground of misconduct; and that the Tribunal, on the basis of 
averments in counter affidavit, erroneously concluded the termination 
order stigmatic. 
It was submitted for Respondent No.I that certain adverse comments 
were made by the authorities against Respondent No.I in connection with G 
negligence and dereliction of duty. 
Allowing the appea~ the Court 
HELD: I.I. The appointment of Respondent No.I was temporary and H 
429 
430 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003) I S.C.R. 
A his services could be terminated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central 
Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. The order of appointment of 
Respondent No.I by its own terms was termination simpliciter. The 
Tribunal, in the impugned order, relied on the statements made by the 
appellants in their counter affidavit to support the order of termination 
of services. There was no other material or circumstance before the 
B Tribunal to take a view that the order of termination was not simpliciter 
and that any stigma was attachec! to Respondent No.I in terminating his 
services. 1432-B, CJ 
State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr. v. Kaushal Kishore Shu/cJa, [1991) 1 sec 
C 91 and Krishnadevaraya Education Trust & Anr. v. L.A. Ba/akrishna, [2001) 
9 sec 319), relied on. 
1.2. Tribunal committed a serious error in law and on facts. of the 
case in concluding that tlte order of termination of services involved stigma 
attached to Respondent No.I. The grounds stated in the counter affiaavit 
D in answer to the challenge made by Respondent No.I were the factors to 
assess his suitability or otherwise to continue in service. Having regard 
to all relevant aspects, the authorities reached a conclusion that 
Respondent No.I was not suitable to continue in service. The order of 
termination of his services was simpliciter without attaching any stigma 
to his conduct. Hence the impugned order cannot be sustained. 
E 
(432-H; 433-A-B) 
_, 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 16838/ 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.5.96. of the Central 
F Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench in OA 281/93) 
P.P. Malhotra, Hemant Sharma, Ms. Anjana Aiyagari, Ms. Sushma Suri 
and P. Panneswaran with t.:m for th~ Appellant. 
S. Muradihar for the Respondent. 
G 
The following Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
SHJVARAJ V. PATIL J. This appeal is directed against the order 
dated 27th May, 1996 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow 
Bench. The respondent no. l was appointed as Assistant Central intelligence 
H officer-11/G/in short A.C.1.0.-11 in the Intelligence Bureau, Ministry of Home 
..· :':" 
···:, 
.. 
... 
U.0.1. v. A.P. BAJPAI (SHIVARAJ V. PATIL,!.] 
431 
Affairs as a temporary employee. His performance was found to be A 
unsatisfactory on account of his negligence and dereliction of duties as he 
was found sleeping during duty hours on 24.6.1990 when he was posted at 
airport, New Delhi; he frequently went on leave and as such remained on 
leave for about six months during his tenure of about one and half years 
which is not disputed and he left the station and absented himself from duty B 
in anticipation of sanction of leave
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.