UNION OF INDIA versus SHRI RATI PAL SAROJ AND ANR.

Citation: [1998] 1 S.C.R. 593 · Decided: 04-02-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

UNION OF INDIA 
A 
v. 
SHRI RAT! PAL SAROJ AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 4, 1998 
[SUJA TA V. MANO HAR AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
B 
Service law : 
Appointment order-Withdrawal/cancellation-Principles of natural C 
justice-Applicability of-Candidate, then Under Secretary, UPSC, was offered 
appointment to IAS on the basis of Civil Services Examination-Candidate 
accepted offer but failed to join as probationer by the due date since he was 
not relieved by UPSC-later CBI registered a complaint against him that 
abusing his official position, the candidate entered into a criminal conspiracy 
with others whereby the originally written answer papers of the candidate D 
in the Civil Services Examination were removed and substituted by other 
answer papers-Thereafter, the Government withdrew/cancelled the offer of 
appointment to the JAS-Subsequently, criminal and departmental 
proceedings were initiated against the candidate-Held: Jn the circumstances 
of the case, withdrawal /cancellation of the offer of appointment to JAS E 
without giving a hearing to the candidate, valid-Administrative law-
Constitution of India, 1950, Art. 311(2)-lAS (Appointment by Competitive 
Examination) Regulations 1955, Regns. l landl3-IAS (Recruitment) Rules, 
1954-/AS (Probation) Rules, 1955. 
The respondent, who was Under Secretary, Union Public Service F 
Commission (UPSC), was offered an appointment to the Indian Administrative 
Service (IAS) on the basis of the Civil Services Examination. The respondent 
accepted the offer of appointment hut failed to join as probationer by the due 
date since he was not relieved by the UPSC. Subsequently, CBI registered 
complaint against the respondent and certain other persons to the effect that G 
abusing his official position the respondent and these persons had entered 
into a criminal conspiracy whereby the originally written answer-papers of 
the respondent in the. CiviIServices Examination were clandestinely removed 
and substituted by other answer-papers. Thereafter, the appellant withdrew/ 
cancelled the offer of appointment to the IAS. The respondent was suspended 
and criminal and departmental proceedings were initiated against him. 
H 
593 
594 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1998] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative 
Tribunal challenging the aforesaid withdrawal/cancellation of the offer of 
appointment to the TAS. The Tribunal allowed the application on the ground 
that the offer could not have been withdrawn without giving a hearing to the 
respondent. Hence this appeal. 
B 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD : 1.1. The respondent, in the present case, is not, in the strict 
sense, governed by Regulation 13 of the Indian Administrative Service 
(Appointment by Competitive Examination) Regulations, 1955, since the 
appointment has been withdrawn after the appointment order was issued and 
C not before. The Indian Administrative Service (Probation) Rules, 1955 also 
do not apply to the respondent because he does not belong to the Indian 
Administrative Service as a probationer. He is in the intermediate stage of 
a person who has accepted the appointment offer but has not joined the new 
service. [598-El 
D 
1.2. It is well settled that a probationer's service can be terminated 
during the period of probation if he is found unsuitable. [598-GI 
Samsher Singh v. State of Punjab, 11974] 2 SCC 831, followed. 
E 
Anoop Jaiswa/ v. Government of India, (1984] 2 sec 369, relied on. 
2. An empolyee who has not yet joined the Central Government Service 
cannot be put on a higher pedestal than a probationer. If an empolyee who 
has been offered a post by the Central Government is not in a position to join 
on the date fixed under the appointment letter and there is no prospect of his 
F joining for several years to come, the Central Government would be entitled 
to terminate the appointment as the person appointed is not available to the 
Central Government within a reasonable time of the appointment and hence 
he is not suitable. This does not cast any stigma nor is it a punishment for 
the prospective employee. If the empolyee has a right to be appointed by virtue 
of his acceptance of the offer of appointment, that right has to be exercised 
G within a reasonable time. It is not a right, which remains for an indefinite 
period of time. Jn the same way, ifthe Government discovers after the offer 
of appointment, circumstances relating to the prospective employee which 
m

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.