Union of India and Anr. v. Manoj Kumar

1. These petitions have been filed challenging the orders passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (in short, ‘Tribunal’). As they raise similar issues, they have been taken up together. For sake of convenience, the OA numbers, the date of the Impugned Order and the corresponding Writ Petitions numbers are being given in a form of a table hereinbelow:- Writ Petition No. O.A. No. Date of the Order W.P.(C) 10233/2023 1636/2019 23.11.2022 W.P.(C) 10228/2023 1639/2019 23.11.2022 W.P.(C) 10230/2023 1640/2019 23.11.2022 W.P.(C) 12741/2023 1635/2019 06.03.2023 W.P.(C) 13025/2023 464/2020 09.02.2023 W.P.(C) 13494/2023 318/2020 08.02.2023 W.P.(C) 13520/2023 761/2019 08.02.2023 W.P.(C) 13522/2023 765/2019 08.02.2023 W.P.(C) 13545/2023 764/2019 08.02.2023

2. By the Impugned Orders, the learned Tribunal has allowed the OA(s) and has set aside the orders terminating the services of the respondents. The learned Tribunal has further remitted the inquiry back to the competent authority with a direction to reinstate the respondents, however, reserving liberty to take further action against them, if so advised, strictly in accordance with law and the provisions of the rules governing the subject.

3. We need not dwell into details of the facts and submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties, for the reason that for a similar selection process and in a challenge to similar orders, this Court, in Union of India & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Anr., 2024:DHC:5282-DB, has dismissed the challenge of the petitioners herein, inter alia, holding therein that the orders terminating the services of the respondent were stigmatic in nature and were not simpliciter orders of termination of services during the probationary period, rather they were based on an allegation that the respondents had adopted unfair means in the recruitment process by impersonation; the same attaches a stigma on the respondent and shall cause them great prejudice even in matters of future employment efforts. The Court held that, therefore, they were to be offered a reasonable opportunity of establishing that the allegations against them are false, however, as no departmental inquiry was conducted against them, the termination orders could not be sustained. This Court further observed that mere reliance on the FSL report for terminating the services of the respondents may not be sufficient. The Court finally concluded as under:-

4. The above Judgment of this Court has been upheld by the Supreme Court vide its Order dated 16.12.2024, passed in SLP (C) bearing Diary No. 55214/2024.

5. The above Judgment was followed by this Court in Union of India & Ors. v. Shri Sukhvinder, 2024:DHC:6636-DB, which Judgment was again upheld by the Supreme Court vide its Order dated 03.01.2025 passed in SLP (C) bearing Diary No. 55633/2024.

6. Though the learned counsels for the petitioners have sought to distinguish the above Judgments, however, we find that the Judgments squarely apply to the facts of the case as the respondents have participated in a similar recruitment process as the respondents in the above petitions, and their services have been terminated in a similar manner and for the same reasons as the respondents therein.

7. Accordingly, we find no merit in the present petitions. The same, along with the pending applications, are dismissed.

NAVIN CHAWLA, J MADHU JAIN, J JULY 30, 2025/rv/ik