Rajesh Meena vs Union Of India And Ors

S.N. Terdal, J

Heard Ms. Meenu Mainee, counsel for applicant and Mr. Shailendra Tiwary, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.

In the OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:

"8.1 That this Hon'ble Tribunal may be graciously pleased to allow this Application and quash the impugned order and to direct the Respondents to reinstate the Applicant with all consequential benefits including back wages.

8.2 That the Hon'ble Tribunal may also be pleased to award any other or further relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.

8.3 That the cost of these proceedings may kindly be granted in favour of Applicant and against the Respondents.

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Bungalow Khallasi with Shri G.S.Suri, Chief Mechanical Engineer on 16.06.2006 for a period of three months with the following conditions:

"1. That your appointment as Sub Bangla Khallashi is temporary and your services can be terminated that due date if your work is not satisfactory or if your services are not required or you your yourself do not want to work. Your appointment will not entitle you for any Group 'D' post in future.

Your appointment has been made on the condition that you will work under Shri G.S.Suri, Chief Mechanical Engineer (P), COFMOW and on his transfer you will go with him or you will work with the next Chief Mechanical Engineer (P), COFMOW. On retirement of Shri G.S.Suri, Chief Mech. Engineer (P), if you will not like the work with the next Chief Mech. Engineer (P), COFMOW of any other office you will be relieved from your duty.

Thereafter, he was granted temporary status w.e.f. 14.10.2006 as substitute Bungalow Khallasi. Subsequently, by the impugned order, the applicant was informed that he was discharged from duty paying one month salary in lieu of one month notice. The impugned order is extracted below:

"In connection with your above mentioned letter, it is informed that in terms of this Office letter No.COFMOW/I.R/P-172-Pt. 7 dated 19.6.2006, you were appointed by the General Manager (Per.), Northern Railway, New Delhi as Bungalow Khallasi under Shri G.S. Suri, Chief Mechanical Engineer (P) on 16.06.2006 for a period of three months on the following conditions:-

"1. That your appointment as Sub Bangla Khallashi is temporary and your services can be terminated that due date if your work is not satisfactory or if your services are not required or you your yourself do not want to work. Your appointment will not entitle you for any Group 'D' post in future.

Your appointment has been made on the condition that you will work under Shri G.S.Suri, Chief Mechanical Engineer (P), COFMOW and on his transfer you will go with him or you will work with the next Chief Mechanical Engineer (P), COFMOW. On retirement of Shri G.S.Suri, Chief Mech. Engineer (P), if you will not like the work with the next Chief Mech. Engineer (P), COFMOW of any other office you will be relieved from your duty.

Shri G.S.Suri, Chief Mechanical Engineer (P), COFMOW has retired from service on 31.8.2007 and the next Chief Mech. Engineer (P) or any other officer do not want to take you on your service. Therefore, by paying one month's salary in lieu of one month's notice, you have been discharged from duty on 10.9.2007.

In accordance with the Rules for granting temporary status to Sub.Bungalow Khallasi screening is done after three years of service. Since your services were dispensed with after a period of one year and two months, the question of conducting your screening does not arise."

The counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the above termination order is bad in law, as the applicant had been granted temporary status. As such he could not have been terminated without holding a departmental enquiry in which as a result of punishment only he could have been terminated from service. In support of her contention, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the following judgments:

"(1) Union of India Vs. Dharmender Kr. Yadav (W.P (C) 3263/2006 & CM 2828-29/06

(2) Shri Suresh Bhagwansing Sainee Vs.UOI & Ors. (CAT, Ahmedabad Full Bench judgment in OA 671/2004)

(3) Railway Board Circular No.803-E/1/Pt.X/ETV Dated 31.12.97 (P.S.No. 11506/97)

(4) Shri Lakhi Ram Vs. Union of India & Others. (W.P (C) No. 6070 of 2006.)"

But, however, in all the above said judgments, the termination orders were stigmatic in nature as such in all those judgments, the termination orders were set aside.

Counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that as could be seen from the termination order, the termination order is not at all stigmatic and he further submitted that the appointment of the applicant as per condition no. 2 of the appointment letter is that the applicant was to work under Mr. G.S.Suri, Chief Mechanical Engineer and on his retirement if he will not like to work with the next Chief Mechanical Engineer, he will be relieved from duty and in the reply affidavit at para 3 it was stated that the next Chief Mechanical Engineer Shri Ram Saran who came on transfer continued with his existing substitute Bungalow Khallasi and other officers were having their own Bungalow Khallasi, as such the services of the applicant was no more required. In these circumstances, he was terminated from service simplicitor and without any stigmatic. In support of his contention he relied upon the recent order of this Tribunal dated 13.03.2018 passed in the case of Anup Kumar Vs. UOI and Others (OA 3640/2012).

In the above said case of Anup Kumar (supra), this Tribunal after examined several judgments came to the conclusion that in case the order is not stigmatic, the termination order cannot be faulted. Para 21 of the said order is extracted below:-

"In view of our above discussion, we are of the view that the Full Bench decision of Ahmedabad Bench in Shri Suresh Bhagwansing Sainee Vs. Union of India (supra) is distinguishable to the extent that had the applicant been discharged from service on the ground of stigmatic order, he would have been ordered to be reinstated. But that is not the case here. Therefore, we are of the considered view that the above decision of the Full Bench is not applicable to the present case as we find no infirmity in the impugned order dated 23.07.2012 passed by the respondents."

Following the reasoning given in the above said case of Anup Kumar, we are of the opinion that there is no infirmity in the impugned order of discharged passed by the respondents.

Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.