IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12052 of 2024

======================================================

Chandan Prakash Pandey Son of Shri J.P. Pandey, ex. Assistant

Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi zone,

1st floor, Central Revenue building (Annexeo, Birchand Patel path,P.S -

Kotwali, District - Patna, Pin code 800001, resident of Maurya vihar

apartment, flat no.204, Maurya path, Baily Road, Khajpura P.S - Shastri

Nagar, District - Patna - 800014 (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The Union of India through the Secretary (Revenue), Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi - 110021.

2.The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue,

Ministry of finance, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Office of

the Chief Vigilance Officer, 6th floor, Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji cama

place, New Delhi -110066.

3.The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance,

Government of India, North Block, New Delhi -110021.

4.The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise

(Ranchi zone), Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna.

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

with

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11330 of 2024

======================================================

Chandan Prakash Pandey son of Shri J.P. Pandey, ex. Assistant Commissioner,

Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise, Ranchi zone, 1st floor, Central

Revenue building (Annexe, Birchand Patel path, P.S-Kotwali, District- Patna,

Patna, Pin code 800001, resident of Maurya vihar apartment, flat no.204,

Maurya path, Baily road, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, District- Patna,Khajpura-

800014 (Bihar).

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.The Union of India through the Secretary (Revenue), Government of India,

Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi 110021.

2.The Under Secretary to the Government of India, Department of Revenue,

Ministry of finance, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and Customs Office of

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

2/42

the Chief Vigilance Officer, 6th floor, Hudco Vishala Building, Bhikaji cama

place, New Delhi-110066

3.The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, Ministry of Finance,

Government of India, North Block, New Delhi-110021.

4.The Chief Commissioner, Central Goods Service Tax and Central Excise

(Ranchi zone), Central Revenue Building, Birchand Patel Path, Patna-

800001 (Bihar).

... ... Respondent/s

======================================================

Appearance:

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12052 of 2024)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Munna Pd Dixit, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG

Mr. Anshuman, Sr. SC, CGST & CX

Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11330 of 2024)

For the Petitioner/s: Mr. Munna Pd Dixit, Advocate

For the Respondent/s: Dr. K.N. Singh, ASG

Mr. Anshuman, Sr. SC, CGST & CX

Mr. Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Advocate

======================================================

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH

and

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY

CAV JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH)

Date: 03.04.2026

The aforesaid two writ petitions have been filed against the

common order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the learned Central

Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (hereinafter referred

to as the ‘Ld. CAT’) in O.A. No. 050/00105/2021 with O.A. No.

050/00362/2020 whereby and whereunder both the said original

applications have been dismissed being devoid of merit, hence

these two writ petitions have been heard together and are being

disposed off by the present common judgment.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

3/42

CWJC No. 11330 of 2024

2. This writ petition i.e. CWJC No. 11330 of 2024 arises out

of O.A. No. 050/00105/2021. The brief facts of the case, according

to the petitioner herein is that he was appointed through the Civil

Services Examination, 2015 in Group ‘A’ Service vide

appointment letter dated 08.12.2016 on the following terms and

conditions:-

“(i) Your appointment will be subject to all the rules

applicable to the Members of the IRS (C&CE) Group "A".

(ii) You will be required to work in the Customs, Central

Excise and Narcotics wings of the Central Board of Excise

& Customs (CBEC) for training or otherwise as and when

required.

(iii) You will draw pay in the Level 10 of Pay Matrix

(corresponding to Pre-Revised Pay Band - 3 (Rs. 15,600-

39,100) plus Grade Pay of Rs. 5400/-) in the manner as

laid down in CCS (Revised Pay) Rule 2016 and other

Government instructions issued on the subject.

(iv) You will be on probation for a period of two years.

During this period you will undergo theoretical and

practical training in the working of the Customs, Central

Excise and Narcotics wings of CBEC in the National

Academy of Customs, Excise & Narcotics (NACEN),

Faridabad and its Regional Training Institute, Bhandup,

Mumbai and also in the field formations of CBEC that will

be indicated in the due course by DG, NACEN and will

have to pass Part l and Part Il of the Departmental

Examination in Customs & Central Excise laws and other

related subjects within the probationary period of two

years. The grant of Increment shall be in accordance with

the extant rules/orders of the Government of India.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

4/42

(v) The period of probation may be extended at the

discretion of Government, if you do not pass the

Departmental Examinations within the prescribed time or

for any other reason, in accordance with the orders or

instructions issued by the Government from time to time in

this regard. Repeated failure to pass the Departmental

Examination within the extended period of probation will

entail loss of employment.

(vi) The Government may discharge you from service at

any time during the period of probation, if, in the opinion

of the Government your work or conduct during this

period is considered unsatisfactory, or shows that you are

unlikely to become an efficient officer.

(vii) You will be considered for confirmation in service on

successful completion of the period of probation and also

if you are found fit in every respect for confirmation.

(viii) It should be clearly understood that your

appointment is subject to any change in the constitution of

the Indian Revenue Service /Customs & Central Excise)

Group 'A' which the Union Government may think proper

to make from time to time and that you will have no claims

for compensation in consequence of any such change.

(ix) You will be liable for transfer to any station within the

Union of India.

(x) No person:

(a) Who has entered into or contracted a marriage

with a person having a spouse living: or

(b) Who, having a spouse living, has entered into or

contracted a marriage with any person, shall be

eligible for appointment to the service.

Provided that where the Central Government is

satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the

personal law, applicable to such person and the other

party to the marriage and there are other grounds for

doing so, exempt any person from the operation of this

rule.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

5/42

(xi) In accordance with instructions contained in the

Department of Personnel & Training's O.M. No.13018/

8/96-AIS) dt. 23.04.97, you cannot seek exemption from

probationary training to appear in the next Civil Service

Examination. Further, no exemption shall be granted to

abstain from probationary training for any reason.

(xii) If you are a member of Scheduled Caste/ Scheduled

Tribe/ Other Backward Class and have changed your

religion or if you change your religion at any time in

future, you should inform the appointing authority

immediately about the change.

(xiii) Officers appointed as a result of an earlier

examination shall rank senior to officers appointed as

result of subsequent examination.

(xiv) Your service will be governed in accordance with the

Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise)

Group 'A' Rules, 2016.

(xv) In case the enquiry as envisaged under Rule 20 of the

Civil Services Examination Rules is pending in your case,

your appointment will be subject to being found suitable

on conclusion of such enquiry.

(xvi) It may be noted that the Government has

Implemented a new structured defined Contributory

Pension system for new entrants to the All India Service/

Central Government Service w.e.f. 1

st

January, 2004

replacing the earlier system of defined Benefit pension

system. Accordingly. wherever applicable, on joining you

will be covered by the said new Pension system.

(xvii) In case, at any stage, it is found that any Certificate/

Document/Testimonial etc. having a bearing on your

eligibility, as furnished by you is not in order, your

appointment shall be cancelled forthwith without

prejudice to any punitive action under the relevant rules.”

3. It is the case of the petitioner that he had joined the services

on 22.12.2016 at National Academy of Customs, Excise &

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

6/42

Narcotics (hereinafter referred to as ‘NACEN’) at Faridabad for

training which he had completed in the month of July, 2017,

whereafter the petitioner herein was directed to join at Regional

Training Center, Bhandup at Mumbai where he reported on

14.07.2017 and there he completed his training successfully. The

petitioner was then sent for field formations at different places in

the country and finally after successfully completing the

mandatory training, he joined at Patna on 12.12.2017. Thereafter,

the petitioner was independently posted on the post of Assistant

Commissioner, Anti-Evasion (Headquarters), Patna in the month

of May, 2018.

4. The petitioner was then sent by the respondents to appear in

Part-I and Part-II of the departmental examinations in Customs

and Central Excise Laws and other related subjects as per Clause

(iv) of the appointment letter dated 08.12.2016 which was held in

between 03.07.2018 to 09.07.2018, however barring Paper-X, the

petitioner is stated to have passed in all the papers vide result dated

31.08.2018. On 30.11.2018, the petitioner had appeared and

cleared the said Paper-X also. The petitioner is stated to have

completed all the requisite and mandatory training and he also

cleared the mandatory Part-I and Part-II examinations before

expiry of the probation period, however in the meantime one Md.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

7/42

Shoaibuddin, Superintendent (Anti-Evasion) and the petitioner

were implicated in one criminal case lodged by the Central Bureau

of Investigation on 27.06.2019 bearing RC No. 023 2019, A 0007

under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code. The petitioner was

arrested on 27.06.2019 and was sent to judicial custody on

28.06.2019. On 01.08.2019, the petitioner and the said Md.

Shoaibuddin were placed under deemed suspension on account of

detention exceeding 48 hours, with effect from 27.06.2019,

however both the petitioner and the said Md. Shoaibuddin were

enlarged on bail on 28.08.2019. The petitioner had then reported

for duty on 30.08.2019 as also had submitted an application on

04.09.2019 for revocation of deemed suspension but instead of

revoking the suspension, the respondents herein had issued orders

dated 19.09.2019, 18.03.2020 and 14.09.2020 extending the period

of deemed suspension while the suspension of the said Md.

Shoaibuddin was revoked on 14.09.2020. The petitioner had then

filed an original application bearing O.A. No. 362 of 2020

challenging his suspension as also the extension orders but the

same was admitted for hearing. Nonetheless, the petitioner

suddenly received an order dt. 05.2.2021, issued by the respondent

No.2, whereby the services of the petitioner has been ordered to be

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

8/42

terminated in view of Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services

(Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Rules, 1965’), which was challenged by the petitioner by filing

the connected original applications bearing O.A. No.

050/00105/2021, before the Ld. CAT, however the same have

stood dismissed by the impugned order dated 08.04.2024, which

has been challenged by the petitioner by way of the present writ

petition.

5. The learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri. M.P. Dixit has at

the outset submitted that a bare perusal of the appointment letter

dated 08.12.2016 would show that the probation period is of two

years during which the probationer has to undergo theoretical and

practical training at NACEN, Faridabad and at Regional Training

Center, Bhandup at Mumbai as also has to pass Part-I and Part-II

of the departmental examinations within the said probation period

of two years. It is thus submitted that the petitioner has not only

completed his training successfully but has also passed Part-I and

Part-II examinations within the probation period of two years. The

Ld. counsel has next referred to the appointment letter dated

08.12.2016, more particularly Clause (v) of the terms and

conditions to submit that the period of probation can be extended

at the discretion of the Government if the probationer does not

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

9/42

pass the departmental examinations within the prescribed time or

for any other reason, in accordance with the orders or instructions

issued by the Government from time to time and reference has also

been made to Clause (vi) of the terms and conditions which

prescribes that the Government may discharge a probationer from

service at any time during the period of probation, if in the opinion

of the Government the work or conduct of the probationer during

the said period is considered unsatisfactory or it is seen that such

probationer is unlikely to become an efficient officer.

6. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has also referred to the

Office Memorandum dated 11.03.2019, which contains the Master

Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central Services. The

Master Circular provides that save for exceptional reasons,

probation should not be extended for more than a year and in no

circumstance an employee should be kept on probation for more

than double the normal period and the probation reports for the

whole period should be considered by a Board of senior officers

for determining whether the probationer concerned is fit to be

confirmed in service or not, apart from an opportunity being given

to the probationer in case the probationer is being discharged from

service. The learned counsel has also referred to Clause 27 of the

Master Circular to contend that the same postulates that an officer

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

10/42

will be deemed to have successfully completed the probation

period if no order confirming, discharging or reverting the officer

is issued within eight weeks after expiry of double the normal

period of prescribed probation.

7. Reference has also been made by the learned counsel for

the petitioner to the Office Memorandum dated 02.07.2018,

containing the Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in

Central Services to contend that Clause 5 thereof also speaks of

probationer being given an opportunity to work under more than

one officer during the probation period and the probation reports

for the whole period should be then considered by a Board of

senior officers for determining as to whether the probationer

concerned is fit to be confirmed in service. It is stated by the Ld.

counsel for the petitioner that all the aforesaid requirements have

not been fulfilled and by-passing the same, the respondent No.2

has passed the order dt. 05.02.2021, by which the services of the

petitioner has been terminated forthwith. Thus, it is submitted that

the order of termination dated 05.2.2021 is punitive and stigmatic.

8. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has further referred to

paragraph No.11 of the written statement filed by the respondents

before the Ld. CAT, specially paragraph No.11 thereof to submit

that for the first time before the Ld. CAT the respondents have

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

11/42

come out with the reasons for terminating the services of the

petitioner i.e. firstly, he had not successfully completed his training

and had remained unauthorizedly absent during his furbisher

course, hence he was not confirmed in the service along with his

batchmates and secondly, the petitioner lacks moral responsibility

and was caught red handed taking bribe which contravenes the

Government’s policy towards zero tolerance to corruption, hence

the case of the petitioner was submitted to the appointing authority

who did not find the petitioner to be fit to remain in service, hence

by invoking Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1965 read with paragraph

No.1, Clause (vi) of the offer of appointment and paragraph

No.6(3) of the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central

Excise) Group ‘A’ Rules, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the

‘Rules, 2016’) has ordered for discharge of the petitioner from

services vide order dated 05.02.2021. It is thus submitted that the

expression ‘unauthorized absence’ is stigmatic in nature and,

therefore, he ought to have been given an opportunity of hearing

prior to passing of the impugned order dated 05.02.2021. It is

further submitted that the furbisher courses were held during the

following periods:-

(i) 13.08.2018 to 07.09.2018

(ii) 14.10.2019 to 08.11.2019

(iii) 16.11.2020 to 04.12.2020

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

12/42

(iv) 27.06.2019 to 28.09.2019

9. It is pointed out by the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner that

the Additional Director General, NACEN, Faridabad vide letters

dated 18.09.2019, 01.08.2019 and 20.10.2020 had requested the

respondents to relieve the petitioner for the furbisher course but

the Chief Commissioner had not passed any order relieving the

petitioner to complete the furbisher course, hence it is submitted

that the petitioner was precluded from completing his furbisher

course, for no fault of his.

10. Now coming to the other issue regarding the petitioner

having been caught red handed while taking bribe, it is submitted

by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the same is also

stigmatic, inasmuch as the petitioner has been treated to be guilty

although the criminal case lodged against him is still pending

consideration and till date the petitioner has not been convicted.

11. At this juncture, the learned counsel for the petitioner has

referred to the order dated 18.03.2020, issued by the Under

Secretary to the Government of India, Ministry of Finance,

Department of Revenue, Central Board of Indirect Taxes and

Customs, New Delhi to submit that the said order speaks of the

draft charge-sheet under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services

(Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

13/42

referred to as the ‘Rules, 1965’) against the petitioner being under

consideration, hence it is submitted that the departmental

proceedings qua the petitioner was under contemplation and

rightly so, therefore the services of the petitioner could not have

been terminated without resorting to a full-fledged departmental

proceedings. It is contended that the provisions of the Rules, 1965

are not applicable to the petitioner herein inasmuch Rule 2(g)

thereof prescribes that the said Rule shall not apply to such other

category of employees as may be specified by the Central

Government by notification published in the Official Gazette and

in view of notification dated 22.04.2016 issued by the Ministry of

Finance (Department of Revenue) whereby and whereunder the

Indian Revenue Services (Customs of Central Excise) Group-A

Rules, 2016 have been framed. Thus, the provision of law under

which the services of the petitioner has been terminated is not

applicable to the petitioner, thus the impugned order dated

05.02.2021, is itself void ab initio.

12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has next contended

that the impugned order passed by the Ld. CAT dated 08.04.2024

is perverse, inasmuch as on the one hand it has been held that the

petitioner was no longer on probation, however on the other hand,

it has also been held that there was no order of confirmation,

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

14/42

nonetheless the Ld. CAT has come to a finding that since the

petitioner was not a regular government servant, hence his claim

for an inquiry under the Rules, 1965 is not tenable and further the

Ld. CAT has also erred by holding that the Rules, 1965 do not

specifically exclude the probationers or persons on probation and

since the probation of the petitioner was not extended beyond two

years and further no order was issued on confirmation of his

services, hence the petitioner’s status was governed under the

Rules, 1965, thus there was no illegality in termination of his

services under Rule 5(1) of the said Rules, 1965.

13. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to a

judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of

Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and Another vs. S.

Manjunath, reported in (2000) 5 SCC 250, paragraph No. 14

whereof is reproduced herein below:-

“14. As indicated by us, the Regulation deals with two

different categories of cases - one about the probation of

an appointee other than by way of promotion and the

other relating to officiation of a person appointed on

promotion. The similarity of purpose and identity of object

apart, of such provision, there is an obvious difference and

positive distinction disclosed in the manner they have to

be actually dealt with. The deliberate use of two different

phraseology probation and officiation cannot be so lightly

ignored obliterating the substantial variation in the

method of handling such categories of persons envisaged

by the Regulations. The mere fact that a reference is made

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

15/42

to sub regulation (3) also in the later part of sub

regulation (8) of the Regulation could not be used to apply

all the provisions relating to the category of appointees on

officiation to the other category of appointees on

probation. The stipulation in sub regulation (8) of the

Regulation when making the passing of an order, a

condition precedent for satisfactory completion

specifically refers only to the completion of period of

officiation. Similarly, notwithstanding a reference made to

sub regulation (3) alongside sub regulation (4), in

stipulating the consequences of any delay in making an

order declaring satisfactory completion, the reference is

confined only to deemed satisfaction and completion of

the period of officiation, and not of probation. Sub

regulation (9) of the Regulation insofar as it provides for

confirmation as a sequel to declaration, only deals with a

promotee to a temporary post and not of the other

category. While dealing with the termination of a

candidate, not found suitable for the post, sub regulation

(3) of the Regulation envisage such termination being

made, at any time within the period of probation, and not

at any time after the completion of such maximum period

of probation. Consequently, the cases on hand also would

fall within the category of cases dealt with in Dayaram

Dayal case (supra) and Wasim Begs case (supra) and the

services of the respondents could not be put an end to

except by means of departmental disciplinary

proceedings, after following the mandatory requirements

of law. Therefore, the High Court cannot be faulted for

interfering with the orders of termination of the services of

the respondents.”

14. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to a

judgment rendered in the case of Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary vs.

Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences, Patna, Bihar &

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

16/42

Ors. reported in (2015) 15 SCC 151, paragraph Nos. 26 & 27

whereof are reproduced herein below:-

“26. In the facts of Palak Modi case, the Court proceeded

to state that there is a marked distinction between the

concepts of satisfactory completion of probation and

successful passing of the training/test held during or at the

end of the period of probation, which are sine qua non for

confirmation of a probationer and the Bank’s right to

punish a probationer for any defined misconduct,

misbehaviour or misdemeanour. In a given case, the

competent authority may, while deciding the issue of

suitability of the probationer to be confirmed, ignore the

act(s) of misconduct and terminate his service without

casting any aspersion or stigma which may adversely

affect his future prospects but, if the misconduct/

misdemeanour constitutes the basis of the final decision

taken by the competent authority to dispense with the

service of the probationer albeit by a non-stigmatic order,

the Court can lift the veil and declare that in the garb of

termination simpliciter, the employer has punished the

employee for an act of misconduct.

27. In the case at hand, it is clear as crystal that on the

basis of a complaint made by a member of the Legislative

Assembly, an enquiry was directed to be held. It has been

innocuously stated that the complaint was relating to

illegal selection on the ground that the appellant did not

possess the requisite qualification and was appointed to

the post of Chest Therapist. The report that was submitted

by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department eloquently states

about the conduct and character of the appellant. The

stand taken in the counter affidavit indicates about the

behaviour of the appellant. It is also noticeable that the

authorities after issuing the notice to show cause and

obtaining a reply from the delinquent employee did not

supply the documents. Be that as it may, no regular

enquiry was held and he was visited with the punishment

of dismissal. It is well settled in law, if an ex parte enquiry

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

17/42

is held behind the back of the delinquent employee and

there are stigmatic remarks that would constitute

foundation and not the motive. Therefore, when the

enquiry commenced and thereafter without framing of

charges or without holding an enquiry the delinquent

employee was dismissed, definitely, there is clear violation

of principles of natural justice. It cannot be equated with a

situation of dropping of the disciplinary proceedings and

passing an order of termination simpliciter. In that event it

would have been motive and could not have travelled to

the realm of the foundation. We may hasten to add that

had the appellant would have been visited with minor

punishment, the matter possibly would have been totally

different. That is not the case. It is also not the case that

he was terminated solely on the ground of earlier

punishment. In fact, he continued in service thereafter. As

the report would reflect that there are many an allegation

subsequent to the imposition of punishment relating to his

conduct, misbehaviour and disobedience. The Vigilance

Department, in fact, had conducted an enquiry behind the

back of the appellant. The stigma has been cast in view of

the report received by the Central Vigilance Commission

which was ex parte and when that was put to the

delinquent employee, holding of a regular enquiry was

imperative. It was not an enquiry only to find out that he

did not possess the requisite qualification. Had that been

so, the matter would have been altogether different. The

allegations in the report of the Vigilance Department

pertain to his misbehaviour, conduct and his dealing with

the officers and the same also gets accentuated by the

stand taken in the counter affidavit. Thus, by no stretch of

imagination it can be accepted that it is termination

simpliciter. The Division Bench has expressed the view

that no departmental enquiry was required to be held as it

was only an enquiry to find out the necessary qualification

for the post of Chest Therapist. Had the factual score been

so, the said analysis would have been treated as correct,

but unfortunately the exposition of factual matrix is

absolutely different. Under such circumstances, it is

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

18/42

extremely difficult to concur with the view expressed by

the Division Bench.”

15. Lastly, the learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to

a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of V.P.

Ahuja vs. State of Punjab and Others reported in (2000) 3 SCC

239, paragraph No.7 whereof is reproduced hereinbelow:

“7. A probationer, like a temporary servant, is also

entitled to certain protection and his services cannot be

terminated arbitrarily, nor can those services be

terminated in a punitive manner without complying with

the principles of natural justice.”

16. Per contra, the learned Additional Solicitor General of

India, Dr. K.N. Singh has submitted that the training of the officer

trainees of 68

th

Batch to which the petitioner belongs commenced

on 19.12.2016 at NACEN, Faridabad, whereafter the officer

trainees of the 68

th

Batch were directed vide letter dated

02.12.2017 to report to the Joint Chief Commissioner for the

purposes of training on or before 11.12.2017 and then the furbisher

course for the 68

th

Batch of officer trainees had commenced on

13.08.2018 which was to be concluded on 07.09.2018, however

during the relieving formalities, attendance records of all the

officer trainees of the 68

th

Batch was compiled and it was noticed

that several officers had remained absent for a specific period of

time during the furbisher course and eight of such officers had less

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

19/42

than 75 % attendance during the entire furbisher course and were

unauthorizedly absent which amounts to indiscipline on the part of

the said eight officer trainees. The petitioner was also one of them,

hence he was not given furbisher course completion certificate.

The petitioner and his controlling authority were informed that the

furbisher course for the petitioner would be repeated next year

with the furbisher course of the next Batch i.e. 69

th

Batch,

however, in the meantime the petitioner was caught red handed by

the CBI accepting a bribe of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on 27.06.2019, leading

to the CBI, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Patna registering a case

bearing RC No. 023 2019 A 0007, whereafter the petitioner was

arrested on 27.06.2019 and was sent to judicial custody leading to

him being placed under suspension vide letter dated 01.08.2019

with effect from 27.06.2019. The suspension of the petitioner was

reviewed and extended for further period of 180 days each time,

vide orders dated 19.9.2019, 18.3.2020 and 14.9.2020. Since the

petitioner was on suspension, he did not join the furbisher course.

Thereafter, the case of the petitioner was examined and it was

observed that he has not successfully completed his training & had

remained unauthorizedly absent during his furbisher course, thus

his services were not confirmed along with his batchmates.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

20/42

17. The learned ASG appearing for the respondents has further

submitted that the respondents observed that the petitioner lacks

moral responsibilities, inasmuch as he was caught red handed

taking bribe which contravenes the government’s policy towards

zero tolerance to corruption, hence the case of the petitioner was

placed before the appointing authority who did not find the

petitioner fit to remain in service, thus by invoking Rule 5(1) of

the Rules, 1965 read with paragraph No.1, Clause (vi) of the offer

of appointment issued to the petitioner & paragraph No. 6(3) of the

Rules, 2016, the appointing authority ordered for discharge of the

petitioner from service vide order dated 05.02.2021. It is thus

submitted that since the petitioner was not confirmed in service as

on 05.02.2021, he was a temporary employee to be governed by

the Rules, 1965. It is stated that a temporary employee has no right

on the post held by him and cannot claim so, thus the department

is well within its right to discharge the petitioner from service in

view of his indiscipline.

18. The learned ASG has next submitted that it is a well settled

law that the department is not bound to give any show cause notice

to remove a temporary employee from service in terms of Rule

5(1) of the Rules, 1965, hence there is no question of violation of

the principles of natural justice in such cases. In this regard, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

21/42

learned ASG has referred to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble

Apex Court in the case of High Court of Judicature at Patna vs.

Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha and Others, reported in

(1997) 10 SCC 409, paragraph Nos. 6 and 9 whereof are

reproduced herein below:-

“6. The service record of Respondent 1 contains the

following remarks:

1976-77 (C.R. of Hazaribagh) - “Outturn was poor”

1977-78(C.R. of Patna)-“An officer of below average merit”

Remark by Court-“Should improve his image”.

1979-80 (C.R. of Patna)-“Outturn poor, so was the quality

of his orders. Did not enjoy the confidence of the Bar and

litigant. Integrity questionable.”

1981-82 (C.R. of Sitamarhi) - “Injunction order passed in

T.S. No. 81 of 1979 was based on extraneous reasons.”

Remarks by the Court – “He did not enjoy good

reputation as Execution Munsif, Patna.”

“Further, in course of inspection of Sitamarhi

Judgeship in May 1983, by an Hon'ble Judge of this

Court, the conduct & antecedents of Shri Sinha at that

station were reported to be very much undesirable &

unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Apart from the

complaints touching his integrity with respect to his

judicial work, serious complaints regarding his

character and morality were also received. It was

reported that he used to drink heavily & play “flush”

in the town with different rich persons.” (pp. 7-8)

The remarks for the years 1976-77 and 1979-80 had been

communicated to Respondent 1 prior to the High Court

took the decision on 19-6-1985 that Respondent 1 is not fit

for retention in service. The other remarks mentioned

about were, however, communicated to Respondent 1 after

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

22/42

the said decision had been taken. The question is whether

the non-communication of the said adverse remarks

vitiates the action that has been taken against Respondent

1, viz., termination of his services on the ground that he

was not fit for confirmation on the post of Munsif. As

regards a probationer, the law is well settled that he does

not have a right to hold the post during the period of

probation. The position of a probationer cannot be

equated with that of an employee who has been

substantively appointed on a post and has a right to hold

that post. An order terminating the services of a

probationer can be questioned only if it is shown that it

has been passed arbitrarily or has been passed by way of

punishment without complying with the requirements of

Article 311(2) of the Constitution. Since a probationer has

no right to hold the post on which he has been appointed

on probation, he cannot claim a right to be heard before

an order terminating his services is passed. The obligation

to communicate the adverse material to a person before

taking action against him on the basis of the said material

is a facet of the principles of natural justice. But principles

of natural justice have no application in the case of

termination of the services of a probationer during the

period of probation since he has no right to hold the post.

It is, therefore, not possible to hold that there is an

obligation to communicate the adverse material to a

probationer before a decision is taken on the basis of the

said material that he is not fit for being retained in service.

Such material can be relied upon to show that such a

decision does not suffer from the vice of arbitrariness and

is not capricious. In this context it may be mentioned that

even with respect to persons who have been substantively

appointed on a post and have a right to hold that post, it

has been held that the failure to communicate the adverse

remarks in the service record would not vitiate the order of

compulsory retirement. (See: Union of India v. M.E. Reddy

[(1980) 2 SCC 15] and Baikuntha Nath Das v. Chief Distt.

Medical Officer.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

23/42

9. In support of the other reason given by the High Court

that the order terminating the services of Respondent 1

was passed by way of punishment, Shri Swarup has placed

reliance on the decision of this Court in Anoop Jaiswal v.

Govt. of India [(1984) 2 SCC 369]. We have carefully

perused the said decision. It has no application to the facts

of the present case. In that case this Court, after

considering the relevant material, came to the conclusion

that the real foundation for the action which was taken

against the employee was the alleged act of misconduct in

having instigated other trainees in not coming to P.T. in

time on 22-6-1981. It was held that since the said act of

misconduct was the foundation of the order, the order of

termination was passed by way of punishment and since

the requirements of Article 311(2) of the Constitution were

not complied with, the said order was set aside. We cannot

say so in the facts of the present case. Here the decision to

terminate the services of Respondent 1 was taken by the

High Court after considering the entries in the service

record of Respondent 1 covering the entire period of

probation. It cannot be said that the said decision of the

High Court was founded on any particular act of

misconduct. Merely because in the letter dated 5-3-1986,

reference has been made to the complaints touching the

integrity of Respondent 1 with respect to his judicial work

and complaints regarding his character and morality and

that he used to drink heavily and play “flush” in the town

with different rich persons does not lead to the inference

that the order was passed by way of punishment for

particular acts of misconduct. These reports were taken

into account for assessing the performance of Respondent

1 during the period of probation and for determining

whether he was fit for confirmation on the post of Munsif.

The said remarks, in our opinion, could legitimately form

the basis for deciding whether Respondent 1 was suitable

for retention in service or not. It is, therefore, not possible

to hold that the order for termination of the services of

Respondent 1 dated 28-8-1986 was passed by way of

punishment for misconduct.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

24/42

It is thus submitted that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held

that the principles of natural justice have no application in a case

of termination of the services of a probationer during the period of

probation since he has no right to hold the post and there is no

obligation to communicate the adverse material to a probationer

before a decision is taken on the basis of the said material that he

is not fit to be retained in service.

19. The learned ASG has also relied on a judgment rendered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan High Court vs.

Ved Priya and another, reported in 2020 SCC OnLine SC 337,

paragraph Nos.19 and 21 whereof are reproduced herein below:-

“19. Probationers have no indefeasible right to continue in

employment until confirmed, and they can be relieved by

the competent authority if found unsuitable. It is only in a

very limited category of cases that such probationers can

seek protection under the principles of natural justice, say

when they are “removed” in a manner which prejudices

their future prospects in alternate fields or casts

aspersions on their character or violates their

constitutional rights. In such cases of “stigmatic” removal

only that a reasonable opportunity of hearing is sine qua

non. Way back in Parshotam Lal Dhingra v. Union of

India [AIR 1958 SC 36], a Constitution Bench opined that:

(AIR p. 49, para 28)

“28. … In short, if the termination of service is

founded on the right flowing from contract or the

service rules then, prima facie, the termination is not a

punishment and carries with it no evil consequences

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

25/42

and so Article 311 is not attracted. But even if the

Government has, by contract or under the rules, the

right to terminate the employment without going

through the procedure prescribed for inflicting the

punishment of dismissal or removal or reduction in

rank, the Government may, nevertheless, choose to

punish the servant and if the termination of service is

sought to be founded on misconduct, negligence,

inefficiency or other disqualification, then it is a

punishment and the requirements of Article 311 must

be complied with.”

21. True it is that the form of an order is not crucial to

determine whether it is simpliciter or punitive in nature.

An order of termination of service though innocuously

worded may, in the facts and circumstances of a peculiar

case, also be aimed at punishing the official on probation

and in that case it would undoubtedly be an infraction of

Article 311 of the Constitution. The Court in the process of

judicial review of such order can always lift the veil to find

out as to whether or not the order was meant to visit the

probationer with penal consequences. If the Court finds

that the real motive behind the order was to “punish” the

official, it may always strike down the same for want of

reasonable opportunity of being heard.”

It is thus contended that probationers have no indefeasible

right to continue in employment until confirmed and they can be

relieved by the competent authority, if found unsuitable.

20. The Ld. ASG has next contended that para No. 27 of the

DOPT’s O.M. dt. 11.03.2019, Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1965, para

No. 1 (vi) and (vii) of the offer of appointment dated 08.12.2016

and Rule 6(3) of the Rules, 2016 are fully applicable in the present

case and accordingly the services of the petitioner have been

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

26/42

terminated, hence there is no infirmity in the procedure followed

while issuing the impugned order dated 05.02.2021, by the

respondent No.2. It is also submitted that neither there is any

perversity nor irrationality nor impropriety in the judgment dated

08.04.2024, passed by the Ld. CAT, hence the present petition is fit

to be dismissed. It is contended that the order of termination dated

05.02.2021 is neither stigmatic nor punitive, inasmuch as no

punishment has been awarded qua the petitioner herein, hence the

provision of Article 311 of the Constitution of India will not be

attracted. Lastly, it is submitted that since the petitioner had joined

the services on 19.12.2016, therefore, as per the guidelines of the

DOPT issued vide O.M. dated 11.03.2019, the petitioner would be

deemed to have successfully completed the probation period, if no

order confirming, discharging or reverting the officer is issued

within eight weeks after expiry of double the normal period of

prescribed probation, which in the present case would be

12.02.2021, however the services of the petitioner have stood

terminated vide order dated 05.2.2021, i.e. before 12.02.2021, thus

there is no question of deemed completion of the probation period.

21. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone

through the materials available on record.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

27/42

22. The facts of the present case lie in a narrow compass. The

petitioner was given an offer of appointment vide letter dated

08.12.2016 as a probationer in the Indian Revenue Service

(Customs and Central Excise) Group-A on the basis of the result of

the Civil Service Examination 2015 subject to the terms and

conditions mentioned therein. For the purposes of the present case,

Clause (iv) to Clause (vi) and Clause (xiv) of the offer of

appointment dated 08.12.2016 would be relevant. According to the

said clauses, the probation will be for a period of two years, during

which period the probationer has to undergo training and will have

to pass Part-I and Part-II examinations within the said probation

period of two years, however the period of probation can be

extended at the discretion of the Government not only for not

passing the departmental examination within the prescribed time

but for any other reasons and further the Government can also

discharge the probationer from service at any time during the

period of probation, if in the opinion of the Govt., the work or

conduct of such probationer is considered unsatisfactory or it is seen

that the probationer is unlikely to become an efficient officer.

Clause (xiv) postulates that the service of such probationer will be

governed by the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

28/42

Excise) Group 'A' Rules, 2016. We deem fit and proper to

reproduce Rule 6 of the Rules, 2016 herein below:

“6. Probation and confirmation.–(1) Every officer on

appointment to the Service, either by direct recruitment or

by promotion in Junior Time Scale shall be on probation

for a period of two years:

Provided that the Controlling Authority may extend

the period of probation in accordance with the instructions

issued by the Central Government from time to time:

Provided further that any decision for extension of a

probation period shall be taken ordinarily within eight

weeks after expiry of the initial period of probation and

communicated in writing to the concerned officer together

with the reasons for so doing within the said period.

(2) On completion of the period of probation, or any

extension thereof, officers shall, if considered fit for

permanent appointment, be retained in their posts on

regular basis and be confirmed.

(3) If, during the period of probation, or any extension

thereof, as the case may be, the Controlling Authority is of

the opinion that an officer is not fit for permanent

appointment, it may discharge or revert the officer to the

post held by him prior to his appointment in the service, as

the case may be.

(4) During the period of probation, or any extension

thereof, an officer may be required by the Controlling

Authority to undergo such course of training and

instructions and to pass examinations, and tests (including

examination in Hindi) as it may deem fit, as a condition to

satisfactory completion of the probation.

(5) As regards other matters relating to probation, the

members of the Service shall be governed by the

instructions issued by the Central Government in this

regard from time to time.”

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

29/42

23. Now, we may also gainfully reproduce Rule 5 of the Rules,

1965 which is reproduced herein below:-

“5. Termination of temporary service- 1(a) The services

of a temporary Government Servant shall be liable to

termination at any time by a notice in writing given either

by the Government Servant to the appointing authority or

by the appointing authority to the Government Servant;

(b) the period of such notice shall be one month:

Provided that the services of any such Government

Servant may be terminated forthwith by payment to him of

a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowance

for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he

was drawing them immediately before the termination of

his services, or, as the case may be, for the period by

which such notice falls short of one month.”

24. Now coming back to the facts of the present case, we find

that pursuant to the offer of appointment dated 08.12.2016, the

petitioner is stated to have joined services on 19.12.2016 and

purportedly after completion of training he was posted at Patna at

the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST and CX (Headquarters), Patna

and was then given independent charge of the post of Assistant

Commissioner, Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST and CX Headquarters

Patna, however in the meantime he was caught red handed by the

CBI on 27.06.2019 while taking bribe and consequently arrested

on 27.06.2019, whereupon he was sent to judicial custody on

28.06.2019, leading to him being placed under deemed suspension

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

30/42

vide order dated 01.08.2019 with effect from 27.06.2019, however

he was enlarged on bail on 28.08.2019 but his suspension was not

revoked and the same was extended from time to time till passing

of the order challenged by the petitioner dated 05.02.2021

whereby and whereunder the services of the petitioner has been

terminated. It would be apt to reproduce the order dated

05.02.2021 herein below:-

“In pursuance of the proviso to sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of

the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules,

1965, the President hereby terminates forthwith the

services of Shri Chandan Prakash Pandey (Date of Birth

12.05.1987) from Indian Revenue Service (Customs &

Central Excise) and directs that he shall be entitled to

claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and

allowances for a period of one month (in lien of the period

of notice) calculated at the same rate at which he was

drawing them immediately before the date on which this

order is served on or, as the case may be, tendered to him.

“(By order and in the name of the President of India)”

25. A holistic reading of the terms and conditions mentioned in

the offer of appointment dated 08.12.2016, Rule 5(1) of the Rules,

1965 and the provisions contained in the Rules, 2016 including

Rule 6 of the said Rules, 2016 would show that the provisions

regarding probation, its confirmation and discharge/termination of

temporary service are unambiguous and in simple and clear words

what is provided for is that any decision for extension of a

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

31/42

probation period shall be taken ordinarily within eight weeks after

expiry of the initial period of probation of two years and if during

the period of probation or any extension thereof, as the case may

be, the controlling authority is of the opinion that an officer is not

fit for permanent appointment, it may discharge or revert the

officer to the post held by him prior to his appointment in the

services, as the case may be. In fact, both Rule 6(3) of the Rules,

2016 and Rule 5(1) of the Rules, 1965 are more or less the same

and do not envisage either giving any show cause prior to

termination of temporary service or compliance of the principles

of natural justice or furnishing any reason for terminating/

discharging the probationer. As far as the Rules, 2016 are

concerned, the petitioner is admittedly governed by the same,

inasmuch as Clause (xiv) of the offer of appointment dated

08.12.2016, issued to the petitioner, categorically states that the

service of the petitioner shall be governed in accordance with the

Rules, 2016. In fact, Rule 6(5) of the Rules, 2016 also provides

that the probationers shall be governed by the instructions issued

by the Central Government with regard to matters pertaining to

probation and confirmation from time to time and one of such

Office Memorandum is the one dated 11.03.2019, which contains

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

32/42

the Master Circular on Probation and Confirmation in Central

Services, Clause 27 whereof is being reproduced herein below:-

“27. The date from which confirmation should be given

effect is the date following the date of satisfactory

completion of the prescribed period of probation or the

extended period of probation, as the case may be. The

decision to confirm the probationer or to extend the period

of probation as the case may be should be communicated

to the probationer normally within 6 to 8 weeks. Probation

should not be extended for more than a year and, in no

circumstance, an employee should be kept on probation for

more than double the normal prescribed period of

probation. The officer will be deemed to have successfully

completed the probation period if no order confirming,

discharging or reverting the officer is issued within eight

weeks after expiry of double the normal period of

prescribed probation.”

26. A bare perusal of the said provision would show that a

probationer will be deemed to have successfully completed the

probation period if no order confirming, discharging or reverting

the officer is issued within eight weeks after expiry of double the

normal period of prescribed probation. In the present case, the

period of eight weeks after expiry of double the normal period of

prescribed probation would have ended on 12.02.2021, however

prior to that the services of the petitioner have been terminated on

05.02.2021, hence admittedly he was a probationer, not confirmed

in service as on the date of termination of his services. A

temporary government employee is definitely governed by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

33/42

Rules, 1965, inasmuch as the Central Government has not issued

any notification exempting such categories of employees in which

the petitioner falls, for non-applicability of the said Rules, 1965

apart from the fact that the Rules, 1965 do not specifically exclude

probationers. Thus, we find that the petitioner’s probation period

had not stood completed. Clause 27 of the Master Circular

unequivocally provides that a probationer shall be deemed to have

successfully completed the probation period if no order

confirming, discharging or reverting the officer is issued within

eight weeks after expiry of double the normal period of prescribed

probation. In the present case, the said period of eight weeks after

expiry of double the normal period of prescribed probation was to

end on 12.02.2021, however prior to that the services of the

petitioner have stood terminated on 05.02.2021. Therefore, there is

no question of deemed completion of the probation period of the

petitioner. In fact, the petitioner is definitely governed, both by the

Rules, 1965 as also by the Rules, 2016. Consequently, we find

from a bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Rules, 2016

and the Rules, 1965 that neither there is any necessity of giving

show cause nor there is any requirement of holding a full-fledged

regular departmental inquiry in a case of termination of the

services of a probationer during the period of probation. Thus, the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

34/42

order terminating the services of the petitioner dt. 5.2.2021, which is

simpliciter in nature, in our considered view does not suffer from

either any infirmity or illegality.

27. The present case, in our view is squarely covered by the law

laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pandit

Madan Mohal Prasad Sinha (supra). As regards the judgment

referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, rendered by

the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of S Manjunath (supra),

Rajesh Kumar Choudhary (supra) and V.P. Ahuja (supra), we

find that the same are distinguishable in the facts and

circumstances of the present case and have been aptly dealt with

by the Ld. CAT in its judgment dated 08.04.2024, hence repetition

is being avoided.

28. As regards non-completion of the furbisher course, we find

that the petitioner could not complete the same on account of him

remaining under suspension till termination of his services vide

order dated 05.02.2021. Nonetheless, we find that the petitioner

was caught red handed while taking bribe leading to the CBI

lodging a criminal case against the petitioner as also he was

arrested and sent to judicial custody, resulting in the petitioner

remaining in custody for couple of months. Thus, all such

instances can definitely be a premise for the Controlling Authority

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

35/42

to form an opinion that a probationer is not fit for permanent

appointment, leading to right being vested with the employer to

dispense with the services of such probationer. In this regard, we

may refer to a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble three judges

Bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Punjab

and Others vs. Sukhwinder Singh, reported in (2005) 5 SCC 569,

paragraph no. 20 whereof is reproduced herein below:-

“20. In the present case neither any formal departmental

inquiry nor any preliminary fact-finding inquiry had been

held and a simple order of discharge had been passed. The

High Court has built an edifice on the basis of a statement

made in the written statement that the respondent was a

habitual absentee during his short period of service and

has concluded therefrom that it was his absence from duty

that weighed in the mind of the Senior Superintendent of

Police as absence from duty is a misconduct. The High

Court has further gone on to hold that there is direct nexus

between the order of discharge of the respondent from

service and his absence from duty and, therefore, the order

discharging him from service will be viewed as punitive in

nature calling for a regular inquiry under Rule 16.24 of

the Rules. We are of the opinion that the High Court has

gone completely wrong in drawing the inference that the

order of discharge dated 16-3-1990 was, in fact, based

upon misconduct and was, therefore, punitive in nature,

which should have been preceded by a regular

departmental inquiry. There cannot be any doubt that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

36/42

respondent was on probation having been appointed about

eight months back. As observed in Ajit Singh v. State of

Punjab [(1983) 2 SCC 217] the period of probation gives

time and opportunity to the employer to watch the work,

ability, efficiency, sincerity and competence of the servant

and if he is found not suitable for the post, the master

reserves a right to dispense with his service without

anything more during or at the end of the prescribed

period, which is styled as period of probation. The mere

holding of preliminary inquiry where explanation is called

from an employee would not make an otherwise innocuous

order of discharge or termination of service punitive in

nature. Therefore, the High Court was clearly in error in

holding that the respondent's absence from duty was the

foundation of the order, which necessitated an inquiry as

envisaged under Rule 16.24(ix) of the Rules.”

Thus, we find that the order dated 05.02.2021, by which the

services of the petitioner has been terminated has been passed in

accordance with the provisions contained in the Rules, 1965,

Rules, 2016 and O.M. dated 11.03.2019, hence the present writ

petition is devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

CWJC No. 12052 of 2024

29. Now coming to the second writ petition i.e. CWJC No.

12052 of 2024, we find from the records that the petitioner had

filed an original application bearing O.A. No. 050/00362/2020

before the Ld. CAT, inter alia praying therein to quash the order

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

37/42

dated 01.08.2019 by which the petitioner had been placed under

deemed suspension with effect from 27.06.2019 on account of his

detention exceeding 48 hours, i.e. judicial custody since

27.06.2019, in connection with one criminal case lodged by the

CBI bearing RC No. 023 2019 A 0007 U/s. 7 of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 120 B of the IPC, which

according to the petitioner has come to an end immediately upon

his release on bail on 28.8.2019 in view of Rule 10 (2) (a) of the

CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.

30. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that instead

of revoking the said order of deemed suspension dated 01.08.2019,

the respondent No.2 has extended the period of deemed suspension

for a period of 180 days each time, vide orders dated 19.9.2019,

18.3.2020 and 14.9.2020. The Ld. counsel for the petitioner has

relied on a judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the

case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary vs. Union of India and Another,

reported in (2015) 7 SCC 291 to submit that the Hon’ble Apex

Court has held therein that the currency of the suspension order

should not extend beyond three months, if within this period the

memorandum of charges/ charge sheet is not served on the

delinquent officer/ employee and if the memorandum of charges/

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

38/42

charge sheet has been served, a reasoned order must be passed for

extension of the suspension period.

31. Per contra, the learned ASG appearing for the respondents

has submitted that the CBI, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Patna had

registered an FIR bearing RC 023 2019 A 0007 dated 27.06.2019

under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and

Section 120 B of the IPC against the petitioner and one other

person namely Md. Shohibuddin, both of whom were arrested on

27.06.2019 and were sent to judicial custody on 28.06.2019. The

relevant contents of the FIR states that a written complaint dated

25.06.2019 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB,

Patna was submitted by Shri Subodh Kumar, Hon’ble MLC,

Vaishali District, S/o Shri Harinath Ray. The genuineness of the

allegation contained in the said complaint was verified. The facts

mentioned in the said complaint and the verification thereof

discloses commission of offences under Section 120 B of Indian

Penal Code and under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988, hence a regular case was registered against the accused

officials. Further, it was informed that the petitioner, then posted as

Assistant Commissioner was caught red handed while accepting a

bribe of Rs. 2.5 lakhs on 27.6.2019 with Shri Shoaibuddin,

Superintendent. The searches were conducted in the office

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

39/42

chamber of the petitioner and Shri Shoaibuddin situated at 5

th

Floor, CTTC Building, Sanchar Parisar, Buddh Marg, Patna-I.

32.Thus, it is submitted by the learned ASG appearing for the

respondents that since the petitioner had remained in custody for

more than 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension vide

order dated 01.08.2019 with effect from the date of his arrest i.e.

27.06.2019 and then his suspension was extended for 180 days

each time, vide orders dated 19.09.2019, 18.03.2020 and

14.09.2020. Thereafter, sanction for prosecution was granted by

the Hon’ble President vide order dt. 14.01.2020 qua the petitioner

U/s. 19 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 2018. It is

stated that the CBI vide O.M. dated 11.09.2020 had advised for

initiating major penalty proceedings qua the petitioner, however in

the meantime the services of the petitioner was terminated vide order

dt. 5.2.2021, hence no further action was taken in the matter of

initiating disciplinary proceedings. It is contended that there is no

provision under Rules 10 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 for

automatic cessation of suspension in case the applicant has been

released from custody on bail and further the suspension order has

been extended from time to time with the approval of the

competent authority as per the prevailing Rules, after due

application of mind and due consideration of the relevant facts and

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

40/42

circumstances of the case of the petitioner. It is also stated that in

fact suspension was extended on the basis of recommendation of

the Suspension Review Committee constituted under Rule 10 (6)

of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and the pending CBI case is also

one of the reasons for extension of the order of suspension of the

petitioner.

33. As far as, the issue of legality of the order of suspension

dated 1.8.2019 & the three orders extending the suspension period

of the petitioner by 180 days each, as aforesaid, is concerned we

find that the case of the petitioner is fully covered by Rule 10(6) of

the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 which reads as follows:

“10. Suspension

(6) An order of suspension made or deemed to have been

made under this rule shall be reviewed by the authority

which is competent to modify or revoke the suspension,

before expiry of ninety days from the effective date of

suspension, on the recommendation of the Review

Committee constituted for the purpose and pass orders

either extending or revoking the suspension. Subsequent

reviews shall be made before expiry of the extended period

of suspension. Extension of suspension shall not be for a

period exceeding one hundred and eighty days at a time.”

34. A bare perusal of the provisions contained in the Rules,

1965 would show that the same empowers the appointing

authority/ disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered

in that behalf by the President to place a government servant under

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

41/42

suspension where a case against him in respect of any criminal

offence is under investigation, inquiry or trial as also a government

servant shall be deemed to have been placed under suspension

with effect from the date of his detention/re-detention, if he is

detained in custody for a period of 48 hours and the same also

provides for extension of order of suspension/ deemed suspension,

hence we do not find any illegality in the said orders dated

01.08.2019, 19.09.2019, 18.03.2020 and 14.09.2020, issued by the

respondents with regard to the suspension/extension of the period

of suspension of the petitioner.

35. We also find that the judgment referred to by the learned

counsel for the petitioner in the case of Ajay Kumar Choudhary

(supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the

present case inasmuch as the said guidelines pertains to a regular

government servant who is not a probationer and moreover, in the

present case admittedly no regular full-fledged departmental

proceeding is required to be conducted prior to termination of the

services of a temporary government servant/ probationer, as has

been discussed at length hereinabove in the preceding paragraphs.

Thus, the challenge of the petitioner to the aforesaid orders of

suspension/extension of the period of suspension do not suffer

from any infirmity, hence his challenge to the same is misplaced,

Patna High Court CWJC No.12052 of 2024 dt.03-04-2026

42/42

therefore the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed, being

devoid of any merit.

36. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case

and for the foregoing reasons we do not find any infirmity much

less any illegality in the impugned judgment and order dated

08.01.2024 passed by the Ld. CAT in O.A. No. 050/00105/2021

and O.A. No. 050/00362/2020. Consequently, the aforesaid two

writ petitions stand dismissed being bereft of any merit.

GAURAV S./-

(Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

(Alok Kumar Pandey, J)

AFR/NAFR AFR

CAV DATE 06.01.2026

Uploading Date 03.04.2026

Transmission Date NA