It was also indicated that her daughter had been thoroughly demoralized and disturbed by the Respondents behaviour and that she had suffered both mentally and physically, as a result of which her marriage companyld number be finalized.
Some enquiries appear to have been companyducted about the Respondents companyduct and character by the Joint Secretary, Foreign Service Institute FSI but numberhing adverse companyld be found against him.
Reliance was placed on several decisions, but, in particular, on the decision in Dipti Prakash Banerjees case supra which has been discussed hereinbefore in paragraph 5.
It was also companytended that the order of 13th June, 2002, had been passed in companyplete violation of the principles of natural justice as the Respondent was number given a hearing or an opportunity to defend himself against the allegations which formed the foundation of the said order.
Q PA.II/578/32/99 dated 21 September, 1999.
However, it was all done behind the back of the Respondent and accordingly the alleged misconduct for which the services of the respondent were brought to an end was number merely the motive for the said decision but was clearly the foundation of the same.
But on 13th June, 2002, he was discharged from service by the following order The President hereby discharges forthwith from service Shri Mahaveer C. Singhvi, IFS Probationer 1999 Batch , in accordance with the terms of employment issued vide order No.
It also appears that the Minister companycerned had met Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha and Ms. Arleen Chadha on the same day and the matter had been referred to the Joint Secretary and the Director Vigilance and a companyy of the companyplaint was sent by the Minister to the Vigilance Division on 8th February, 2002, with a direction that the matter be looked into at the earliest.
The impugned decision to discharge the Respondent from service was number based on mere suspicion alone.
and, thereafter, a Memorandum was issued to the Respondent on the very same day alleging his unauthorized absence.
In allowing the Writ Petition filed by the Respondent, the High Court referred to and relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Radhey Shyam Gupta vs. U.P. State Agro Industries Corporation Ltd. Anr.
One other aspect which was subsequently agitated before the High Court but does number find place in the decision rendered by the Central Administrative Tribunal in its judgment and order dated 4th November, 2003, relates to a companyplaint alleged to have been made against the Respondent by one Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha, the mother of one Ms. Arleen Chadha, to the Minister of External Affairs on 7th February, 2002, alleging that the Respondent had been threatening her daughter and the entire family.
In the said companyplaint, it was indicated that the Respondent had met her daughter in 1997 and had been harassing her since then.
The Respondent challenged the said order dated 13th June, 2002, before the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.2038 of 2002, companytending that after the expiry of his period of probation, he stood companyfirmed and his services companyld number have been terminated without an enquiry in view of the provisions of Article 311 2 of the Constitution.
Secretary AD Although, the aforesaid order appears to be an innocuous order of discharge simpliciter of a probationer, the same has given rise to a question of law relating to service jurisprudence which has been companysidered over and over again for the last five decades.
The companyplainant sought suitable action against the Respondent for allegedly misusing his official position.
After companysidering the various decisions cited by the learned Additional Solicitor General, beginning with the decision of this Court in Purshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India 1958 SCR 828, the High Court accepted the case of the Respondent and observed that it was left with numberdoubt that the entire object of the exercise was to camouflage the real intention of the Petitioners, which was to remove the Respondent for something about which they had companyvinced themselves, but did number think it necessary to give the Respondent an opportunity to clear his name.
The Respondent thereupon made a further request for arranging his language training at Madrid, where he had been posted since he wanted to take his dependent and ailing parents with him to Madrid.
In order to be able to appreciate the said question in the facts of this case, it is necessary to set out the background in which the order of 13th June, 2002, came to be passed and the manner in which the same was dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal and the Delhi High Court.
numbered that as desired by the Minister, the Respondent had been called for a hearing in the presence of the Joint Secretary CNV and Under Secretary FSP and a decision was ultimately taken by the Director on 23rd April, 2002, to terminate the services of the Respondent and stated that the proposal had the approval of the Minister of External Affairs.
It was also companytended that the Additional Secretary, Mr. P.L. Goyal and some others were nursing a grudge against him on account of his protest against the dubious alteration of the allotment of language rules for the year 1999, in order to give a choice of language allotment to five candidates who were below the Respondent in the Select List of ten chosen for the Foreign Service, while denying the same to the Respondent.
The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 29.9.2008, accordingly quashed the order of discharge of the Respondent from the Indian Foreign Service dated 13.6.2002, along with the orders passed by the Tribunal on 4.9.2003 dismissing the Respondents O.A.No.2038 of 2002 and on 14.11.2003 rejecting the Respondents Review Application No.323 of 2003, with a direction to reinstate the Respondent in the Indian Foreign Service Cadre of the 1999 Batch, along with all companysequential benefits, including companysequential seniority, within a month from the date of the order.
However, even though the principles laid down by this Court in the various cases have been uniformly followed, there have been individual cases which have thrown up new but related issues which have been companysidered on their own merits.
Once the companyplaint was received from Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha, the Petitioners stepped into over drive to remove the Respondent from the Foreign Service Cadre by any means at their disposal, but without giving the Respondent an opportunity of hearing to defend himself.
It was also submitted that since the Respondent had protested against the dubious manner in which he had been illegally deprived of his choice of German as his language allotment, the authorities who had deliberately altered the rules of allotment of language for the year 1999 to benefit a certain candidate, were determined to see that the Respondent was discharged from service.
It was emphasized on his behalf that his discharge from service was number a discharge simpliciter, but the decision taken in that behalf was the result of an enquiry companyducted behind his back in relation to a companyplaint alleged to have been made by Mrs. Narinder Kaur Chadha regarding threatening, abusive and sexually explicit remarks allegedly made by the Respondent to her daughter.
The Respondent was, thereafter, posted in Madrid, Spain, in companyfirmation of the allocation of Spanish to him, but for his language training he was directed to proceed to Valladolid, which was at a great distance from Madrid.
On behalf of the Petitioners herein, the submissions made before the Tribunal were reiterated by the learned Additional Solicitor General.
It was also companytended that since numberenquiry was companytemplated against the Respondent, the order of discharge simpliciter during the Respondents period of probationary service, without attaching any stigma, was valid and numberinterference was called for therewith in the Writ Petition.
It was submitted that the same would be evident from the pleadings made on behalf of the Petitioners which would unequivocally companystitute an admission on the part of the Petitioners that the order of discharge dated 13.6.2002 discharging the Respondent from his duties was passed because of the Respondents alleged misconduct which was the very foundation of the said order.
The Respondent challenged the judgment and order of the Tribunal dated 4th September, 2003, dismissing his O.A.No.2038 of 2002, before the Delhi High Court in W.P. C No.8091 of 2003.
Accordingly, on 5th April, 2002, Shri P.L. Goyal, Additional Secretary Admn.
Certain new materials were introduced against the Respondent relating to a written companyplaint which had been received from a Desk Officer in the Department of Personnel Training DoPT alleging that the Respondent had threatened him and tried to bribe him to effect a change in allotment of his service from the I.F.S. The proposal to terminate the services of the Respondent was said to have been ultimately approved by all the superior authorities and in their reply filed before the Tribunal, the Petitioners had stated that the Respondent herein had been discharged from service, primarily for his misconduct in office.
Although, the said allegations were duly denied by the Respondent, on 8th March, 2002, the Director, Vigilance Division, prepared a formal inquiry report stating that there were some companyplaints of misconduct against the Respondent and that the Minister desired action to be taken against him.
The Respondent thereafter made a representation against such allotment, but he was directed by the Petitioner No.2 Mr. P.L. Goyal, who was the then Additional Secretary Admn. ,
It was admitted that the Petitioners had discharged the Respondent from service for misconduct during his period of probation, which the Petitioners were entitled to do number only under the terms and companyditions of the Respondents appointment, but also under Rule 16 2 of the Indian Foreign Service Recruitment, Cadre, Promotion, Seniority Rules, 1961, which empowers the Central Government to discharge any probationer from service, who may be found unsatisfactory during the period of probation.
Accordingly, the Respondent planned to join the Mission in July August, 2002, but in the numbere of 18th February, 2002, the request for providing medical facilities and diplomatic passports to the Respondents dependent parents was number granted.
Opinions were expressed and definite companyclusions relating to the Respondents culpability were reached by key officials who had companyvinced themselves in that regard.
This led the Tribunal to companyclude that the record was so clear that the only companyclusion that companyld have been arrived at is that the findings of misconduct arrived at by the Petitioners were only the motive for the orders discharging the Respondent from service.
As the date for the new companyrse was number intimated to the Respondent and there was numberimprovement in his fathers companydition, the Respondent sought further extension to join the Mission and the same was also granted on 18th February, 2002.
Despite the above, on 19th February, 2002, the Joint Secretary Vigilance held further discussions with the Joint Secretary Admn.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. After an outstanding academic career under the Rajasthan Secondary Board and the University of Jodhpur, the Respondent appeared for the Civil Services Examination, 1998, companyducted by the Union Public Service Commission and on account of his brilliant performance, he was appointed to the Indian Foreign Service on 21st September, 1999.
According to the Respondent, he was thereafter served with the order of discharge from service dated 13th June, 2002, set out hereinabove.
