High CourtsDivision Bench(2005) 02 DEL CK 0118

Commissioner of Police, Deputy Commissioner of Police and Additional Dy. Commissioner of Police vs Regional Secretary, Board of Secondary Education and Ex. Const. Rajender Singh Yadav

Delhi High Court · Decided on 11 February 2005 · Citation: (2005) 117 DLT 659 : (2005) 80 DRJ 727

HON’BLE JUDGES
V.K. Jain, J · J.P. Singh, J
CASE NUMBER
WP (C) No. 5393 of 2003

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

3 paragraphs · 355 words

Vijender Jain, J.—This petition can be disposed of at this stage itself as we have perused the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal(for short `the C.A.T.''). The C.A.T. relying upon Dipti Prakash Banerjee Vs. Satvendra Nath Bose National center for Basic Sciences, Calcutta and Others, has held that the principles of natural justice were violated if the service of the respondent was terminated on the ground that he had submitted forged certificate and no opportunity was given to him to explain as to whether the report which had been received by the petitioner regarding the forgery was correct or not. The case of the respondent was that he was not at fault as he had lost the original certificate and had been denied the copy of the certificate which was lying with the petitioners. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has contended that there was no question of giving any show cause notice to the respondent as the service was terminated implicate under proviso of Rule 5 (1) (a) of CCS(Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. Learned counsel for the petitioners has also argued that in the termination order the reason for terminating the services of the respondent was nowhere mentioned, Therefore no notice was required to be given. We are afraid we cannot accept the reasoning of the petitioners that the service of an individual on probation and training can be dispensed with in terms of Rule 5 of the CCS(Temporary Services) Rules even if the basis for termination is the allegation of committing a forgery with regard to his certificate of educational qualification. We are of the considered view that it was incumbent upon the petitioners to give an opportunity to the respondent to explain his case as the termination order was, in fact, punitive in nature. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the writ petition. Interim order is vacated.

2.

However, we give liberty to the petitioners to initiate an enquiry if they so desire so as to ascertain the truth regarding certificates of respondent and take action in accordance with law.

3.

With these observations, the petition stands disposed of.