Caught by CBI, fired by President: Patna High Court denies relief to IRS officer in bribery case

Justices Mohit Kumar Shah and Alok Kumar Pandey said a temporary government employee is governed by the 1965 service rules.

“The order terminating the services of the petitioner on February 5, 2021, which is simpliciter in nature, in our considered view, does not suffer from either any infirmity or illegality,” the Patna High Court said on April 3.

The order added that the probation period can be extended at the government’s discretion, not only for not passing the departmental examination within the prescribed time, but for any other reason. It said the government can also discharge the probationer from service at any time during probation, if his work or conduct is unsatisfactory or it is seen that the probationer is unlikely to become an efficient officer.

Bribery allegation, immediate discharge

The petitioner, Chandan Prakash Pandey, a Group ‘A’ officer of the 2015 civil service batch, challenged the termination of his services and the extension of his suspension.

Pandey was appointed in December 2016 and was placed on a two-year probation period. However, in June 2019, while posted as an assistant commissioner in Patna, he was caught “red-handed” by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) for allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs 2.5 lakh.

Following his arrest and subsequent judicial custody exceeding 48 hours, he was placed under deemed suspension. In February 2021, the President of India terminated Pandey’s services forthwith under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.

Pandey challenged this before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which dismissed his applications in 2024, leading to the present plea before the Patna High Court.

Authority empowered to suspend: Order

• A temporary government employee is definitely governed by the 1965 rules since 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, apart from the fact that it does not specifically exclude probationers.
• The petitioner’s probation period had not been completed, the Patna High Court observed.
• The petitioner was caught red-handed while taking a bribe, leading to the CBI lodging a criminal case against him. He was arrested and sent to judicial custody, resulting in the petitioner remaining in custody for a couple of months.
• All such instances can definitely be a premise for the controlling authority to form an opinion that a probationer is not fit for permanent appointment, leading to the right being vested with the employer to dispense with the services of such probationer.

• A bare perusal of the provisions contained in the 1965 rules would show that it empowers the appointing/disciplinary authority or any other authority empowered in that behalf by the President to place a government servant under suspension.
• It applies 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.
• He was detained in custody for a period of 48 hours, and the same also provides for extension of the order of suspension/ deemed suspension, hence we do not find any illegality in the orders issued by the authority with regard to the suspension/extension of the period of suspension of the petitioner.