HC Upholds Termination of Probationer IRS Officer Without Inquiry

Case Details: Chandan Prakash Pandey vs. Union of India - [2026] 185 taxmann.com 510 (HC-Patna)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mohit Kumar Shah & Alok Kumar Pandey, JJ.
• Munna Pd Dixit, Adv. for the Appellant.
• Dr K.N. Singh, ASG, Anshuman, SC & Shivaditya Dhari Sinha, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the petitioner was selected as a probationer in the Indian Revenue Service (Customs and Central Excise) Group-A based on the results of the Civil Service Examination 2015. He was offered an appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein – Petitioner joined services and, after completion of training, he was posted at the Anti-Evasion Branch, CGST and CX (Headquarters), Patna.

However, in the meantime, he was caught red-handed by the CBI while taking a bribe and was consequently arrested, after which he was sent to judicial custody, leading to his being placed under deemed suspension.

His suspension was not revoked and was extended from time to time until the passing of the order terminating the petitioner’s services. The petitioner filed a writ challenging the order of termination.

It was noted that the period of eight weeks after expiry of the double normal period of prescribed probation would have ended on 12.02.2021; however, before that, the services of the petitioner had been terminated on 05.02.2021. Hence, he was admittedly a probationer, not confirmed in service as on the date of termination of his services. The petitioner was definitely governed, both by Rules 1965 and by Rules 2016.

Further, it was noted that neither was there any necessity to give a show cause notice nor was there any requirement to hold a full-fledged regular departmental inquiry in a case of termination of services of a probationer during the period of probation.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the order terminating the services of the petitioner, which was simpliciter in nature, did not suffer from either any infirmity or illegality. Further, since the petitioner was caught red-handed while taking bribe leading to CBI lodging a criminal case against the petitioner, and he was arrested and sent to judicial custody, all such instances could definitely be a premise for Controlling Authority to form an opinion that a probationer was not fit for permanent appointment, leading to the right being vested with the employer to dispense with the services of such probationer.

Thus, the order by which the services of the petitioner had been terminated had been passed in accordance with provisions contained in Rules, 1965, Rules, 2016 and O.M. dated 11.03.2019. Hence, the instant writ petition was devoid of any merit and liable to be dismissed.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S. Manjunath [2000] 5 SCC 250
• Ratnesh Kumar Choudhary v. Indira Gandhi Institute of Medical Sciences [2016] 10 taxmann.com 1423 (SC)/(2015) 15 SCC 151
• V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab 2000 taxmann.com 3095 (SC)/(2000) 3 SCC 239 (para 27)
• Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [2015] 58 taxmann.com 231/233 Taxman 54 (SC)/(2015) 7 SCC 291 (para 35) distinguished
• High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha [1997] 10 SCC 409 (para 27) followed

List of Cases Referred to

• Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation v. S. Manjunath [2000] 5 SCC 250 (para 13)
• RATNESH KUMAR CHOUDHARY v. INDIRA GANDHI INSTITUTE OF MEDICAL SCIENCES [2016] 10 taxmann.com 1423 (SC) (para 14)
• V.P. Ahuja v. State of Punjab 2000 taxmann.com 3095 (SC) (para 15)
• High Court of Judicature at Patna v. Pandey Madan Mohan Prasad Sinha [1997] 10 SCC 409 (para 18)
• Rajasthan High Court v. Ved Priya 2020 SCC OnLine SC 337 (para 19)
• State of Punjab v. Sukhwinder Singh 2005 taxmann.com 2285 (SC) (para 28)
• Ajay Kumar Choudhary v. Union of India [2015] 58 taxmann.com 231/233 Taxman 54 (SC) (para 30).