Union Of INDIA Through Secretary Ministry Of Finance & Ors. vs. Narendra Lal Meena & Anr.

Held

The Court held that the termination notice dated 05.03.2025 was punitive in nature. Applying the principles laid down in various Supreme Court and Delhi High Court judgments, particularly concerning the distinction between 'motive' and 'foundation' for termination, the Court found that the allegations of misconduct (impersonation) formed the foundation of the termination order, rather than being a mere motive for assessing suitability. The Court noted that while Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, does not explicitly mandate an inquiry, a termination order becomes punitive if it is based on the findings of an inquiry into misconduct. The Court found no infirmity in the CAT's order setting aside the termination notice for being stigmatic and requiring a proper inquiry. The petition was dismissed.

Facts

The petitioners, Union of India and others, challenged an order dated 07.08.2025 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) in O.A. No.994/2025. The CAT had allowed the Original Application filed by respondent no.1, Narendra Lal Meena, setting aside a termination notice dated 05.03.2025 and directing his reinstatement with consequential benefits. Respondent no.1 was recommended for appointment to the post of Inspector (CGST and Central Excise) based on the Combined Graduate Level Examination, 2023 (CGLE-2023), accepted an offer of appointment, and joined duty on 14.02.2024. The petitioners issued a Show Cause Notice dated 23.04.2025 alleging impersonation by respondent no.1 in prior examinations. Subsequently, a notice of Termination of Service dated 05.03.2025 was issued under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, citing discrepancies in photographs and signatures suggesting an impersonator appeared for respondent no.1 in CGLE-2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the termination notice dated 05.03.2025, issued under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, was punitive in nature and thus required a detailed inquiry, as contended by the respondent no.1 and held by the Tribunal? The petitioners argued that the notice was not stigmatic but merely stated the reasons for exercising the power under Rule 5(1), which does not mandate a detailed inquiry. They asserted that grave allegations of impersonation were evident from photographs. The respondent no.1 argued that the termination notice was indeed stigmatic and that the Show Cause Notice contained different allegations than the termination notice. 2. Whether the discrepancy between the Show Cause Notice and the termination notice rendered the termination invalid? The petitioners submitted that a revised Show Cause Notice was issued on 16.12.2025. The respondent no.1 contended that this discrepancy further supported his claim that the termination was not a simple discharge.