Riddhi Patni

(Lords of Law)

The Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar v. Union of India and Others, reiterated that during an employee’s probation period, the employer has the right to cancel his candidature or terminate his service without notice if such employee conceals material facts or submits false information. The Division Bench of Justices R Subhash Reddy and Hrishikesh Roy was hearing an appeal filed by Rajesh Kumar against a set of orders issued by the Delhi High Court on April 20 and 29, 2008.

The appellant was appointed sub-inspector in the Delhi Police in 1994. In 1996, the respondent authorities received a complaint alleging that the appellant was a deserter from the Army and had been declared an absconder after deserting the armed forces in 1992. This was confirmed by the Station House Officer in Inderpuri, who also confirmed that he had not disclosed the same in a form that he had filled out. As a result, the respondent authorities terminated the appellant’s services during the probation period. The appellant objected to this and claimed that he was not given an opportunity to present his side of story, and also that the order terminating his service was issued after an investigation was conducted behind his back.

The Supreme Court noted at the outset that the appellant’s order of termination of employment was only a termination simpliciter (simply and unconditionally) and was within the powers enshrined in Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules of 1965. “Rule 5 enables Government to dispense with the services of a temporary employee forthwith but does not provide for the forfeiture to Government of a similar amount when the employee does not give the requisite notice. The practice of obtaining an undertaking from temporary employees regarding forfeiture of pay and allowances should be discontinued where this has not already been done.” 

“During the probationary period, it is always open to the employer to verify the antecedents of a temporary appointee in the event that any information is received by way of dispute or otherwise.” It cannot be said that respondents conducted regular inquiry in order to provide an opportunity to the appellant simply because the antecedents were verified by addressing a letter to the SHO/Inderpuri.

The Court observed that “in the absence of any allegation in the impugned order, the order of termination dated 14.08.1996 cannot be said to be an order casting stigma on the appellant.” The Court cited its decision in Avatar Singh v. Union of India and Others (SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION [C] NO.20525/2011), in which it was stated that once a verification form requires certain information to be furnished, the declarant is obligated to provide it correctly, and any suppression of material facts can result in service termination. As a result, the Court dismissed the appeal, noting that “before the declaration of probation, on the grounds that the appellant has not disclosed particulars of previous employment, the respondents are always free to terminate his temporary service without issuing any notice.” Anshu Mahajan, an advocate, represented the appellant. Jayant Sud, Additional Solicitor General of India, argued on behalf of the respondents.