U.O.I versus A.P. BAJPAI AND ORS.

U.O.I versus A.P. BAJPAI AND ORS.

The termination of respondent no. I was a termination simpliciter under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1966, without attaching any stigma. Reliance by the Tribunal on statements in the counter affidavit was erroneous as such statements do not alter the nature of the termination order.

Parties
Appellant: U.0.1.; Respondent: A.P. Bajpai
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
20 January 2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Decision
Outcome
appeal allowed; Tribunal's order set aside
Legal Topics
Termination of Temporary Employee, Termination Simpliciter, Stigmatic Termination
Service Law Termination of Temporary Employee Termination Simpliciter Stigmatic Termination

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

U.0.1.

Appellant

A.P. Bajpai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Central Administrative Tribunal, Lucknow Bench Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of termination of respondent no. I was stigmatic or simpliciter under Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1966, Section 5(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The termination of respondent no. I was a termination simpliciter under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1966, without attaching any stigma. Reliance by the Tribunal on statements in the counter affidavit was erroneous as such statements do not alter the nature of the termination order.

Court Disposition

appeal allowed; Tribunal's order set aside

Orders

  • The impugned order of the Tribunal is set aside.
  • Respondent no. I's termination is upheld as simpliciter.