The Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) has quashed the termination order of an employee of the Office of the Accountants General (A&E), Haryana, Lekha Bhawan. The employee, Sunil Kumar, worked as a Data Entry Operator. The Tribunal held that terminating his services without holding an inquiry was wrong.
Who Is Sunil Kumar and Why Was He Terminated?
Sunil Kumar was appointed as a Data Entry Operator on the recommendation of the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in 2015. He challenged his termination order through his counsel, KB Sharma.
The Senior Deputy Accountant General (Administration), Lekha Bhawan, was the appointing authority in this case. Kumar's appointment carried a probation period of two years. This period could be extended at the discretion of the appointing authority or an authority higher than it. During the probation period, the appointment was purely temporary.
What the Tribunal Said About the Termination
The central question before the Tribunal was whether an employee's services could be ended without a proper inquiry. The CAT's answer was clear: no. It ruled that terminating the services of an employee without an inquiry was wrong, and on that basis quashed the termination order.
To put it plainly, the Tribunal's decision rests on a simple principle of service law — before an employee's services are terminated, the employer must follow the due process of an inquiry. Skipping that step was the flaw the Tribunal refused to accept.
Our Take: Why This CAT Order Matters
In our view, this order is a reminder to government departments that probation does not mean an employee can be removed at will without following procedure. The Tribunal has made it clear that an inquiry is not optional — it is a basic safeguard every employee is entitled to.
For employees in government offices, especially those appointed through the SSC and serving probation, this ruling matters. It tells them that if their services are ended without a proper inquiry, they have a remedy before the CAT. For appointing authorities, the message is equally direct: follow the process, or the order will not survive judicial scrutiny.
What readers should take away is this — the outcome here does not automatically mean Sunil Kumar returns to his post. It means the termination order itself no longer stands, and the matter now goes back to the stage where the correct procedure must be followed.
