Sri. Chandra KishoreThakur vs The Union of India (UOI) and Others

Heard Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Gnesh Pd. Singh, Senior Advocate asserted by Mr. Sharad Kumar Sinha, for the Respondent No. 5 Mr. Jayant Kumar Karn for the Union of India Mr. R.K. Shahi.

The short contention on behalf of the Petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur is that any appointment which he had reived as an extraordinary Post-Master, Imately became provisional and was idea to continue, depending upon the substances that Surendra Kumar loudhary who had challenged his appoint may ultimately be cleared from Criminal case which was pending. The (sic) on behalf of the Petitioner is it if Surendra Kumar Choudhary who challenged his appointment has been quitted beyond the reasonable doubt and a clear track record then at that stage alter a situation may arise as to of the is the better candidate. Suffice it to (sic) the contention on behalf of the Petitioner is that far from being acquitted at time when the Tribunal rendered its (sic) dated 26 July 2000, Surendra Kumar boudhary is and was an accused No. 6 in (sic) Case No. 256 of 1994: State v. Mahabir Mahto, in the Court of I Ind Additional Sessions Judge, Begusarai and (sic) u/s 395 of the Indian penal Code charges for dacoity. The position of Surendra Kumar Choudhary, before Tribunal far from getting better is worse the now stands for trial on charges of (sic) Thus the contention on behalf of Petitioner is that there was no occan for the department of Postal to terminate his services by an order of 21 Februvary 2001 and worse come to worse his vices were to continue provisionally as Bred by the Tribunal, the operative por-(sic) of the order of the Tribunal dated (sic) 7.2000.

The contention on behalf of the Petitioner are borne by record and on this there is no issue. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner also submits that the fact that Surendra Kumar Choudhary had been charged and was to stand trial u/s 395 of the IPC was a fact but an aspect which Surendra Kumar Choudhary did not disclose before the Central Administrative Tribunal. If that be the case then the Petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur will be entitled to seek a review of the decision of the Tribunal.

In so far as the present writ petition is concerned, clearly in the face of the order of the Tribunal the action to terminate the services of the Petitioner Chandra Kishore Thakur by a department order dated 21 February 2001 (Annexure 10) to the Interlocutory Application No. 1070/2001 is quashed.

The petition succeeds. There will be no order as to costs.