Ranjeet Kumar vs Union of India (UOI)

Suresh Kait, J.—The present writ petition is directed against the order dated 6th October, 2005 in OA No. 1944/2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi.

Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Petitioner has challenged in the present writ petition.

The Petitioner was appointed as Bunglow Khalasi on 21st /23rd August, 2002. He was granted temporary status vide order dated 3rd January, 2003 with effect from 21st December, 2002. The date of 8th September, 2005 was fixed for screening vide order dated 16th August, 2005 and the Petitioner''s name was included therein. After completion of three years of service satisfactorily, on 22nd August, 2005 he was called vide notice dated 16th August, 2005 for screening for regularization. He was also asked to bring the certificates of educational qualifications, certificate of date of birth and certificate of SC/ST/OBC in case he belongs to. Before he could appear before the screening committee, which was fixed on 8th September, 2005, a show cause notice was served on the Petitioner on 31st August, 2005 on the allegations that he had been misbehaving, disobeying for the last six months. The Petitioner submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice denying the allegations and requested the authorities to allow him to appear in the screening for regularization. The Respondent after considering the reply to the show cause notice, the Petitioner was terminated by order dated 7th September, 2005 with one month salary in lieu of notice period.

The Petitioner challenged the aforesaid order by filing the present OA No. 1944/2005 on the ground that termination is absolutely wrong, illegal and arbitrary as no reasons were given and no detail of incidents were given as how he had misbehaved or disobeyed the orders.

The Respondents strongly opposed the present OA. They submitted that the Petitioner was terminated in accordance with terms and condition given to the Petitioner at the time of his appointment and on the basis of report given by the Executive Director, Railways Stores with whom the Petitioner was attached.

The question before the Tribunal and before us also is (i)whether disciplinary and appeal rules would apply to the Substitute Bungalow Khalasi ; (ii) whether the services of the Petitioner was purely contractual and he can be discharged, he can be terminated in terms of the contract.

The learned Tribunal has dealt the aforesaid issue by referring number of Supreme Court judgments amongst one that is State of Uttar Pradesh and Another Vs. Kaushal Kishore Shukla, wherein a view was taken by their Lordships that the temporary Government servant had no right to hold the post, his services were liable to be terminated by giving him one month''s notice without assigning any reason either under the terms of the contract provided for such termination or under the relevant statutory rules regulating the terms and conditions of temporary Government servants.

Recently, we have also dealt this issue in WP(C) No. 5004/2007 in the case of Raj Kumari v. Union of India and Ors. by order dated 31st October, 2008.

We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and both are in agreement that the present issue is fully covered by the aforesaid judgment. We are of the considered opinion and hold that the service of the Petitioner could be terminated only in accordance with procedure laid down in the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules, which has undoubtedly not been done. We cannot agree with the Tribunal that termination of the services of the Petitioner were valid in law. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 6th October, 2005 passed by the Tribunal in OA No. 1944/2005.

We, hereby, grant liberty to the Respondent to hold an inquiry under the Disciplinary and Appeal Rules against the Petitioner. After inquiry, if required, the Respondent shall take a decision how to treat the period of absence for pay and allowance etc.

The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. No costs.