Bhupal Singh vs State of H.P. and Another

Deepak Gupta, J.—This petition is directed against the order dated 12.11.1999 whereby the services of the Petitioner were terminated taking recourse to sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.

The undisputed facts of the case are that the Petitioner was selected as Lecturer in Commerce by the Public Service Commission. His letter of appointment provided that he would be on probation for a period of two years which period could be extended for one year in special circumstances by a written order. Admittedly, this letter of appointment was issued on 3.11.1997. The Petitioner joined service on 20.11.1997 and the probation period ended on 20.11.1999. In between, a memo was served upon the Petitioner on 1.9.1999 whereby it was proposed to hold an inquiry against him on various charges including the charges that he had remained absent from duty without prior permission and also that he had misbehaved with his superiors.

The Petitioner filed reply to the said memo. It appears that no formal order on the reply filed by the Petitioner was issued but a notice was issued to the Petitioner that his services would stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of a period of one month in terms of sub Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.

The Petitioner challenged this order vide O.A No. 3376 of 2009 before the learned H.P State Administrative Tribunal. Since the Tribunal stands abolished vide notification issued by the Central Government and the case has been transferred to this Court in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Tribunal (Transfer of Decided and Pending Cases and Applications) Act, 2008, the matter has been taken up by this Court and now registered as The stand of the State is that the conduct of the Petitioner during the probation period was not suitable. According to the Respondent-State, the Inquiry Officer found the applicant guilty and, therefore, action u/s 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 was taken. In fact, the stand of the Respondent is not clear. They have neither taken action in terms of the probation clause nor have they completed the inquiry. A notice was issued to the Petitioner which is under challenge before this Court. This notice was issued under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 which would not be applicable in the present case.

It would be pertinent to mention here that this notice was stayed by the learned erstwhile Tribunal and, therefore, till date the Petitioner continues in service. Though in the reply, it is stated that some inquiry was held, there is no material attached with the reply to show that any such inquiry was held. In fact, from the reply of the Petitioner to the charge-sheet, it is apparent that no inquiry could not have been completed by the time, the notice was issued on 12.11.1999 to the Petitioner. If inquiry had been completed then action could have been taken in accordance with the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and not as per the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

In view of the above discussion, I am of the opinion that the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 were wrongly invoked in the case and, therefore, notice dated 12.11.1999 is quashed. It is however, made clear that the State can continue with the inquiry initiated vide memo dated 25.8.1999, if it so desires.

The petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs.