Union Of India & Others vs Girija Shankar Pathak

Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J

Union of India has filed this writ petition challenging the judgment and order dated 26.3.2019, passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad (Circuit Bench at Nainital) in Original Application No. 331/1281/2018. By the said judgment, the order of termination dated 21.2.2017, passed by Inspector Posts, Berinag against the respondent, was set aside and postal authorities were directed to reinstate the respondent on his post with all consequential benefits. Operative portion of the impugned judgment is reproduced below:

“14. In view of the above, we are of the considered view that the facts of this OA are similar to the facts dealt in OA No. 742 of 2016 in the case of Birbal Vs Union of India & others clubbed with other OAs with similar facts and the applicant is entitled for similar benefit as per the order dated 14.07.2017 of the Tribunal and the order dated 30.04.2018 of Hon’ble Allahabad High Court.

Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.02.2017 (Annexure A-1) is quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant to his post with all consequential benefits i.e., full TRCA for the period they have been kept out of service because of the impugned orders. In case, his place has been filled up by another person, then the applicant should be accommodated in any other vacant post of GDS. This order should be complied within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The liberty is granted to the respondents to proceed against the applicant under the Rule 4(3) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 in the light of the order dated 30.04.2018 passed by Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in view of allegations of serious irregularities alleged in the process of the applicant’s recruitment. It is directed that necessary orders for reinstatement be issued accordingly within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. Arrears of TRCA be disbursed within two months from the date of reinstatement. Liberty is given to the respondents to proceed against the applicant falling under category (1) and (2) above.”

The facts on which there is no dispute are that the respondent was regularly appointed as Gramin Dak Sewak (Male Deliverer) vide order dated 5.3.2014. His services, however, were terminated vide order dated 21.2.2017, without assigning any reason, by invoking Rule 8(1) and (2) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Respondent challenged his termination by filing an Original Application, which has been allowed by the Central Administrative Tribunal vide judgment and order dated 26.3.2019, which is impugned in the present writ petition.

Respondent contended before the Tribunal that no notice or any opportunity of hearing was given to him before terminating his services; the termination order was passed on 21.2.2017, in which, although, the expression ‘notice’ is used, however, it became effective against the respondent from the date of passing the said order, which fact reveals that no time was given to the respondent to respond to the notice. Rule 8(2) of the service rules for Gramin Dak Sewaks provides that period of notice given to a Dak Sewak while terminating his services shall be one month.

The contention raised by the respondent found favour with the Tribunal and, accordingly, the Tribunal allowed the Original Application filed by the respondent by relying upon a judgment rendered in O.A. No. 742 of 2016, Birbal vs. Union of India & Others, by Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad.

It is admitted to learned Counsel for the parties that the judgment rendered by Allahabad Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal in the case of Birbal has attained finality and persons, who filed Original Applications, which were decided by a common judgment in the case of Birbal, have been reinstated in service.

Since the facts of the case in hand are identical to the facts of Birbal’s case and since the case of the respondent falls in Category (3), as indicated in para 29 of said judgment, therefore, Circuit Bench at Nainital of Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad was justified in following the view taken in Birbal’s case.

Even otherwise also, Rule 8(2) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 provides that one month’s notice has to be given to a Dak Sewak before terminating his services. In the present case, termination order although is styled as notice, but it resulted in termination of respondent’s services with immediate effect. Therefore, services of the respondent were terminated in gross violation of the provision contained in Rule 8(2) of the said Rules. Hence, the view taken by the Tribunal is correct.

Consequently, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment. Accordingly, writ petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.