CAT Chandigarh Quashes Termination of Probationary Employee: Stigmatic Termination Without Departmental Inquiry Violates Principles of Natural Justice. It held Termination of Probationer for Being Punitive and Stigmatic in Probationer Termination Quashing case.

CAT Chandigarh quashes a probationer’s termination by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, holding that an order founded on misconduct and allegations of fraud cannot bypass disciplinary inquiry and natural justice.

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) bench can quash the termination of a probationer when the discharge is found to be punitive, stigmatic, or in violation of natural justice, rather than a simple, non-stigmatic termination for unsatisfactory performance.

Key Grounds for Probationer Termination Quashing by CAT Bench

Note: If a probationer’s service is terminated purely on the ground of unsatisfactory performance through a non-stigmatic order during or at the end of the probation period, the CAT bench generally will not interfere with the employer’s discretion.

Can an employer terminate a probationary employee by describing the action as a simple termination during probation when the actual foundation of the decision consists of allegations of misconduct, fraud, concealment and objectionable conduct?

Can an authority rely upon allegations of misconduct to justify termination while simultaneously avoiding a regular departmental inquiry and the safeguards of natural justice?

The Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Chandigarh Bench, considered these important service-law questions in Renu Verma v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 060/504/2025, decided on 2 February 2026.

The Tribunal quashed the termination order dated 9 April 2025 issued against a Junior Secretariat Assistant working under Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti (NVS).

The employee had been appointed on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband while in service. During her probation, her services were terminated by invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Case Title: Renu Verma v. Union of India & Others
Case Number: O.A. No. 060/504/2025
Court: Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench
Date of Reservation: 14 November 2025
Date of Pronouncement: 2 February 2026
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Singh Thakur, Member (J), and Hon’ble Mrs. Anjali Bhawra, Member (A).

The respondents subsequently sought to justify the termination by referring to allegations concerning her marital status, alleged concealment of material facts, conflicting documents, alleged objectionable conduct and other matters emerging from fact-finding exercises.

The Tribunal examined the substance and foundation of the termination rather than merely the language used in the termination order.

It concluded that the termination was founded on allegations of misconduct and stigma, rather than a mere assessment of unsuitability during probation. Since no formal charge-sheet or regular departmental inquiry had preceded the termination, the action could not be sustained.

The Tribunal accordingly quashed the termination order and directed the respondents to treat the applicant as continuing in service with all consequential benefits in accordance with the rules.

Importantly, the Tribunal clarified that the employer would remain at liberty to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh, if warranted, by following the applicable rules and principles of natural justice.

Brief Facts of the Case

The applicant was a widow and had been offered appointment on compassionate grounds following the death of her husband, who was employed with Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti.

She was appointed to the post of Junior Secretariat Assistant (JSA) through an appointment offer dated 14 June 2024 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Regional Office, Chandigarh.

The appointment was in Pay Level 2, with a pay scale of ₹19,900–63,200 under the CCS (Revised Pay) Rules, 2016, subject to probation and training.

She joined service on 25 June 2024 at Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya, Amritsar-I, Punjab.

Allegations of Harassment and Subsequent Attachment

According to the applicant, while working at JNV Amritsar-I, she was subjected to sexual and physical harassment by a colleague.

She alleged that her complaints to the local authorities within NVS did not result in appropriate action.

She further alleged that, instead of addressing her complaints, certain officials retaliated against her by circulating personal photographs allegedly taken from her office computer.

These were allegations made by the applicant and were disputed by the respondents.

On 19 October 2024, the applicant was attached to JNV Mohali with immediate effect. She joined there on 21 October 2024 and continued working at that institution.

The applicant alleged that the attachment was unauthorised, punitive and retaliatory.

Termination of Services on 9 April 2025

On 9 April 2025, at approximately 7:30 PM, the applicant received a telephone call from the Principal of JNV Mohali directing her to report to the school office to receive an urgent communication from the Regional Office.

Upon reaching the office, she was served with a termination order dated 9 April 2025.

The order terminated her services forthwith by invoking:

• Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965; and
• Clause 2 of the appointment letter.

The termination order did not record detailed reasons, charges or findings.

No formal departmental charge-sheet or regular disciplinary inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules had been issued or conducted before termination.

Aggrieved by the action, the applicant submitted a detailed representation dated 10 April 2025 to the Commissioner, NVS.

Thereafter, she approached the Central Administrative Tribunal under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, seeking quashing of the termination order, reinstatement and consequential benefits.

Contentions Raised by the Applicant

The applicant challenged the termination on several grounds.

1. Termination by an Allegedly Incompetent Authority

The applicant contended that her appointment offer had been issued by the Deputy Commissioner, NVS, Regional Office, Chandigarh, who was the appointing authority.

However, the termination order had been issued by the Assistant Commissioner-cum-Cluster In-Charge.

According to the applicant, Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vested the relevant power in the appointing authority, and the authority issuing the termination order lacked jurisdiction.

2. Absence of Performance Assessment or Probation Evaluation

The applicant argued that there was no adverse assessment of her work, training deficiency or unsatisfactory performance communicated to her.

She maintained that no warning, advisory or opportunity to improve had been given before termination.

Accordingly, she contended that the termination could not be justified as an ordinary discharge on the ground of unsuitability during probation.

3. Violation of Natural Justice

The applicant argued that no show-cause notice, charge-sheet or opportunity of hearing had been provided before terminating her services.

She contended that the action had civil consequences and could not be sustained without compliance with the principles of natural justice.

4. Alleged Retaliation Following Harassment Complaints

The applicant relied upon the sequence of events involving her complaints of sexual harassment, subsequent attachment to another institution and eventual termination.

She alleged that the termination was retaliatory and amounted to victimisation for raising complaints against officials.

She also raised concerns regarding the alleged non-constitution of an Internal Complaints Committee.

These allegations formed part of her case before the Tribunal.

5. Violation of Constitutional Protections

The applicant contended that the termination was arbitrary, discriminatory and contrary to Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India.

She further argued that the protection available under Article 311(2) was attracted because the termination was punitive and founded upon allegations of misconduct.

Defence Taken by the Respondents

The respondents opposed the Original Application and maintained that the termination was lawful because it had taken place during the probationary period.

Their principal contentions were as follows.

1. Authority to Terminate Under the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules

The respondents relied upon the NVS Headquarters notification dated 3 July 2023 concerning the revised appointing, disciplinary, appellate and reviewing authorities.

They contended that the Principal of the concerned Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalaya was the appointing and disciplinary authority for the post of JSA, while the Assistant Commissioner (Cluster) was the appellate authority.

They further argued that, because the regular Principal had retired and the Vice Principal was holding additional charge, the Assistant Commissioner (Cluster In-Charge), being the next higher authority, could exercise powers under the proviso to Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

2. Alleged Discrepancies Regarding Marital Status

The respondents alleged that subsequent verification had revealed serious discrepancies concerning the applicant’s marital status and eligibility for compassionate appointment.

They contended that:

• The applicant had failed to produce a valid marriage certificate despite repeated directions.
• Conflicting documents existed concerning her status as the deceased employee’s widow.
• Another woman had approached the department claiming to be the legally wedded wife of the deceased employee.
• Verification from civil authorities and the Sub-Divisional Officer, Nainwa, Rajasthan, allegedly indicated that no marriage had been registered between the applicant and the deceased employee.
• Two separate death certificates had allegedly been issued containing different particulars concerning the widow.

The respondents also stated that a formal inquiry concerning these discrepancies was underway before the District Magistrate, Sangrur.

These were allegations and submissions made by the respondents; the Tribunal did not finally determine the disputed marital-status or compassionate-appointment issues in this order.

3. Allegations Concerning Conduct and Discipline

The respondents also relied upon a fact-finding inquiry concerning the applicant’s conduct.

They alleged that inappropriate relations, objectionable chats and photographs had come to light during the inquiry and that the applicant’s conduct was inconsistent with organisational discipline and decency.

The respondents further contended that the applicant’s sexual harassment complaints against a colleague had been examined by the police, which had allegedly found no such incident.

On this basis, they maintained that the termination was a simple termination during probation and not a punishment imposed after a finding of misconduct.

4. Compassionate Appointment Does Not Confer a Vested Right

The respondents argued that compassionate appointment was not an absolute or vested right.

They contended that where an appointment had allegedly been obtained through concealment or misrepresentation, the employee could not seek protection or reinstatement merely because the termination occurred during probation.

Main Issue Before the Tribunal

After considering the rival submissions, the Tribunal identified the central issue as:

Whether the termination order dated 9 April 2025 was a termination simpliciter during probation or a punitive and stigmatic termination founded upon allegations of misconduct, and whether such termination could be passed without following the principles of natural justice and the prescribed disciplinary procedure.

This distinction became decisive in the outcome of the case.

Findings and Reasoning of the Central Administrative Tribunal

1. The Termination Order Was Non-Speaking

The Tribunal examined the actual termination order dated 9 April 2025.

It observed that the order invoked Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 and the relevant clause of the appointment letter.

However, the order did not record detailed reasons, charges or findings.

The Tribunal also noted that no formal departmental charge-sheet or regular disciplinary inquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules had been issued or conducted before termination.

Thus, on its face, the termination was presented as an ordinary termination during probation.

However, the Tribunal emphasised that the language or form of the termination order was not conclusive.

2. The Foundation of Termination Must Be Examined

The Tribunal reiterated the settled principle that, where the form of an order is not conclusive, the Court or Tribunal must examine its actual foundation rather than merely its wording.

A probationer may ordinarily be discharged for unsuitability through a simple termination order.

However, where the real foundation of termination consists of allegations of misconduct and the action carries stigma, it becomes punitive in nature.

Such action cannot be sustained without compliance with the principles of natural justice and the applicable disciplinary procedure.

The distinction is therefore between:

• Termination simpliciter based on unsuitability or assessment during probation; and
• Punitive or stigmatic termination founded upon allegations of misconduct.

The Tribunal found that the present case fell within the second category.

3. Respondents’ Own Reply Disclosed the Punitive Foundation

One of the most important aspects of the judgment was the Tribunal’s examination of the respondents’ written reply.

The respondents had sought to justify the termination by relying upon allegations concerning:

• Concealment and discrepancies relating to marital status.
• Alleged submission of conflicting documents.
• Alleged objectionable conduct and chats.
• Photographs and allegations of inappropriate relations.
• Alleged indiscipline.
• Findings of fact-finding verification and inquiries.
• Alleged misrepresentation or fraud in obtaining compassionate appointment.

The Tribunal observed that these were not merely incidental background facts.

The respondents had expressly relied upon these allegations to justify the termination.

Consequently, the respondents’ own pleadings demonstrated that the termination was founded upon allegations of misconduct and stigma rather than a mere assessment of performance, suitability or probation.

This finding was central to the Tribunal’s conclusion.

4. Termination Cannot Be Made Punitive by Substance but Simple by Form

The Tribunal held that an employer cannot rely upon allegations of misconduct and fraud as the foundation of termination while simultaneously claiming that the order is a simple termination during probation and therefore immune from procedural safeguards.

The substance and foundation of the action must be examined.

If misconduct forms the foundation of termination and the action carries stigma, the employer must follow the applicable disciplinary procedure.

The use of Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 cannot be used to bypass these safeguards.

5. Reliance on Delhi High Court Judgment in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Virender

The Tribunal relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Government of NCT of Delhi v. Virender, W.P. (C) No. 12696/2023.

The Delhi High Court had reiterated the principle that where termination of a probationer is founded upon misconduct, fraud or moral blameworthiness, the action may become punitive even if it is described as termination simpliciter.

In such circumstances, a proper inquiry consistent with the principles of natural justice is necessary.

The Tribunal applied this principle to the facts before it.

6. Article 311(2) and Principles of Natural Justice

The Tribunal also referred to the settled legal position emerging from decisions of the Supreme Court concerning termination of probationers.

While a probationer may be discharged for unsuitability through a simple termination order, a different legal position arises where the termination is founded upon misconduct or carries stigma.

In such circumstances, the protection of Article 311(2), where applicable, and the principles of natural justice are attracted.

The Tribunal specifically noted that:

• No charge memo had been issued.
• No inquiry officer had been appointed.
• No opportunity of hearing or defence had been granted.
• No finding of guilt had been recorded through a duly conducted inquiry.

In these circumstances, the respondents could not rely upon allegations of misconduct and fraud to justify termination while avoiding the procedural safeguards applicable to punitive action.

7. Verification and Disciplinary Proceedings Cannot Be Short-Circuited

The Tribunal also considered the respondents’ allegations concerning the applicant’s eligibility for compassionate appointment and conduct during service.

It held that once the respondents themselves asserted that the appointment had been obtained through misrepresentation and that the applicant’s conduct was blameworthy, they were required to proceed in accordance with the applicable disciplinary procedure.

Invoking Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules to avoid the process was impermissible where the action was punitive in substance.

The Tribunal did not, however, grant the applicant permanent immunity from future verification or disciplinary proceedings.

Instead, it expressly preserved the employer’s right to initiate appropriate proceedings afresh in accordance with law.

8. Termination Order Was Liable to Be Quashed

On an overall consideration of the pleadings and material on record, the Tribunal concluded that the termination order was founded upon allegations of misconduct and stigma.

It was not merely an assessment of the applicant’s suitability during probation.

Since the termination had been imposed without a formal charge-sheet, regular inquiry or opportunity of defence, the order could not be sustained in law.

The Tribunal accordingly held that the termination order dated 9 April 2025 was liable to be quashed and set aside.

Final Order of the Central Administrative Tribunal

The Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, allowed the Original Application.

The operative directions were:

1. The termination order dated 9 April 2025 issued by Respondent No. 5 was quashed and set aside.
2. The respondents were directed to treat the applicant as continuing in service.
3. The applicant was held entitled to consequential benefits in accordance with the applicable rules.
4. The competent authority was not precluded from initiating appropriate proceedings against the applicant, if warranted, in accordance with law and by following due process and the principles of natural justice.
5. The Original Application was disposed of in the above terms.
6. The associated miscellaneous applications were also disposed of.
7. No order as to costs was passed.

Also Read-Illegal Termination in India

Important: The Tribunal did not finally adjudicate the disputed allegations concerning marital status, eligibility for compassionate appointment, harassment or the applicant’s alleged conduct. It decided the legality of the termination on the ground that its punitive foundation required compliance with the prescribed procedure.

Legal Principles Emerging From the Judgment

This judgment is significant for service jurisprudence, particularly concerning the termination of probationary employees.

1. The Substance of the Termination Order Matters More Than Its Label

An employer cannot avoid procedural safeguards merely by describing an order as termination simpliciter.

The Court or Tribunal must examine the actual foundation of the action.

2. Probationers Are Not Without Legal Protection

Although a probationer does not have an absolute right to continue in service, the employer cannot use the probationary status as a justification to impose a punishment without following the prescribed procedure.

3. Misconduct-Based Termination Requires Due Process

Where allegations of misconduct, fraud or moral blameworthiness form the foundation of termination, the action may become punitive and stigmatic.

The employer must follow the applicable disciplinary procedure and principles of natural justice.

4. An Employer Cannot Rely Upon Misconduct Allegations Without Following Inquiry Procedure

If an employer relies upon allegations of misconduct to justify termination, it cannot simultaneously claim that the action is a simple discharge requiring no inquiry.

5. Article 311(2) Protection Must Be Considered Where Applicable

The judgment reiterates that the protection under Article 311(2), where applicable, may be attracted when termination is punitive and founded upon misconduct rather than a mere assessment of suitability.

6. Quashing of Termination Does Not Prevent Fresh Proceedings

The Tribunal clarified that setting aside the termination order does not prevent the competent authority from initiating fresh disciplinary or verification proceedings.

However, any such proceedings must comply with applicable rules and principles of natural justice.

Also Read-Wrongful Termination Case Zirakpur Kharar Mohali Derabassi

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Q1. Can a probationary employee be terminated without a departmental inquiry?

Yes, an employee on probation may ordinarily be discharged through a simple termination order on grounds of unsuitability, subject to applicable service rules. However, if the actual foundation of termination is misconduct or allegations carrying stigma, the employer must follow the applicable disciplinary procedure and principles of natural justice.

Q2. What is the difference between termination simpliciter and punitive termination?

Termination simpliciter generally refers to discharge based on unsuitability or assessment during probation without imposing a punishment. Punitive termination is founded upon allegations of misconduct or blameworthy conduct and carries stigma. The actual foundation of the order, rather than merely its wording, determines its nature.

Q3. What did CAT Chandigarh hold regarding Rule 5(1) of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965?

The Tribunal held that Rule 5 could not be used to bypass disciplinary procedure where the termination was punitive in substance and founded upon allegations of misconduct.

Q4. Is a charge-sheet necessary before terminating a probationer?

Not in every case. A simple termination for unsuitability during probation may not require a regular disciplinary inquiry. However, where the termination is founded upon allegations of misconduct and is stigmatic, the applicable disciplinary safeguards must be followed.

Q5. What happens if an employee is terminated on allegations of fraud without an inquiry?

Where allegations of fraud form the foundation of a punitive or stigmatic termination, the employer must follow the applicable procedure and principles of natural justice. A termination order cannot be protected merely by describing it as termination simpliciter.

Q6. Does quashing a termination order prevent the employer from taking fresh action?

No. In this case, the Tribunal expressly clarified that the competent authority could initiate appropriate proceedings afresh, if warranted, in accordance with law and by following due process.

Q7. What relief was granted by CAT Chandigarh in this case?

The Tribunal quashed the termination order dated 9 April 2025 and directed the respondents to treat the applicant as continuing in service with all consequential benefits in accordance with the rules.

Q8. Did the Tribunal finally decide the allegations concerning the applicant’s marital status and compassionate appointment?

No. The Tribunal examined those allegations as part of the respondents’ stated foundation for termination. It did not finally adjudicate the disputed marital-status or compassionate-appointment issues. It left the respondents free to initiate appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.

Also Read-Service Termination Education Tribunal MATTER- HC

Conclusion

The decision of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, reinforces an important principle of service law: an employer cannot disguise a punitive termination as a simple discharge during probation to avoid the requirements of natural justice.

The legal character of a termination order depends not merely on the language used in the order but also on the allegations and circumstances forming its actual foundation.

Where an employer relies upon allegations of misconduct, fraud, concealment or other blameworthy conduct to justify termination, the applicable disciplinary procedure cannot be bypassed merely because the employee is still on probation.

At the same time, the judgment recognises that an employer retains the authority to initiate fresh proceedings where legally warranted, provided that the prescribed procedure and principles of natural justice are followed.

For employees facing termination during probation, this judgment highlights the importance of examining whether the action is genuinely based on unsuitability or is actually founded upon allegations of misconduct.

For employers and public authorities, it serves as a reminder that the substance of an administrative action must comply with the procedural safeguards required by law.

Case Reference: Renu Verma v. Union of India & Others, O.A. No. 060/504/2025, Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, decided on 2 February 2026.

Disclaimer: This article is intended for general legal information and educational purposes only. It is based on the judgment discussed above and should not be treated as legal advice. The applicability of the legal principles depends upon the facts of each case, the applicable service rules and the nature of the termination order.

By Satish Mishra Adv (99888-17966)