Point of Law: In the case of a probationer if employer chooses to hold an enquiry into his alleged misconduct, or inefficiency, or for some similar reason, the termination of service is by way of punishment, because it puts a stigma on his competence and thus affects his future career. In such a case, he is entitled to protection of Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

Headnote:
Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 - Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 - Rule 8 – Service matter - Post of Gramin Dak Sevak - Order of termination from service – Challenged - Petitioner challenged the termination order before CAT which was disposed by the Tribunal with the direction that the concerned authority in the Postal Department shall consider the Original Application filed by the petitioner as a representation of the petitioner and shall pass a speaking order thereon - Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the Postal authorities again passed an order.
Finding of the court:
It is clearly a case where the application, which was submitted beyond the closing date, was accepted by the employer and, therefore, it is not open for the respondent department to cancel his candidature, after his joining in service and rendering service for almost one year, on the ground that application was submitted after closing date. Leaving aside this main reason for terminating the service of petitioner, the fact remains that even this ground was not disclosed to the petitioner when his services were terminated. Therefore, the petitioner approached the CAT, twice where orders were passed directing the respondent department to disclose the reason for his termination, but the reason was withheld by department. It was only when the petitioner filed an Execution Petition before the CAT, Guwahati Bench, against non-compliance of the direction of the Tribunal and the Tribunal directed the respondent department to comply with the directions passed in the Original Application, the reason was disclosed to the petitioner. By this time seven years had passed - Impugned set aside and respondent authorities are directed to re-instate the petitioner in service within one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Result: Writ petition disposed of

ORDER :

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.

Heard Mr. P. Mahanta, learned Advocate appearing for the writ petitioner. Also heard Mr. R.K.D. Choudhury, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India, appearing for the respondents.

2. The petitioner before this court has challenged the order dated 09.03.2021, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), Guwahati Bench, in O.A. No. 329/2019, by which the Original Application filed by the present writ petitioner has been dismissed.

3. The material facts for our consideration are as follows:

In response to an advertisement in the newspaper way back in the year 2007, the writ petitioner was one of the candidates who had applied for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS) under the Postal Department, Government of India. Thereafter, the Committee appointed for selection of the candidates for the aforementioned posts selected the petitioner after going through the relevant documents etc. and the petitioner was appointed as GDS BPM, Zutlibari BO vide order dated 25.10.2017. However, while the petitioner was working in the said post, he received an order dated 19.08.2008, issued by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dibrugarh Division, by which the service of the petitioner was terminated. The aforesaid order merely states that the service of the petitioner stood terminated forthwith. In other words, no reason has been assigned for the termination of service.

The petitioner challenged the termination order before the CAT, Guwahati Bench in O.A. No. 152/2008, which was disposed by the Tribunal with the direction that the concerned authority in the Postal Department shall consider the Original Application filed by the petitioner as a representation of the petitioner and shall pass a speaking order thereon. Pursuant to the order passed by the Tribunal, the Postal authorities again passed an order dated 17.10.2008. The order refers to an enquiry conducted in the case of the petitioner, the case as put forward by the petitioner and then it states as under:-

“I have gone through the application. I have also gone through the letter alleging irregularities in appointment made by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dibrugarh Division. I have gone through the enquiry report which investigated the allegations made. I have consulted the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 by which the Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 has been replaced.

I find from the above that the appointment of Shri Bulbul Lahon as BPM, Zutlibari BO under Dibrugarh Division was not made in accordance with the rules. This has resulted in a more deserving candidate being deprived of the appointment. As per Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 which have been replaced the P&T EDA (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 the power to terminate services of GDS employees has not been limited only to instances arising out of misconduct. Neither does the rule require any show cause notice to be issued. Accordingly, the action of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dibrugarh Division in terminating the services of Shri Bulbul Lhaon has been in accordance with the rules in force. It is also clear that the action has been taken for good and sufficient reasons and is not based on whim and caprice as has been alleged. I do not agree with the allegation that the termination has been ordered in order to favour some particular person. There is no basis for such allegation. Appointments are made as per rules and established procedure and where such procedure has not been followed there is provision for undoing the irregularity. It is not proposed to go into the legal issues that have been raised by the applicant as the undersigned is not qualified to deal with the same.

In view of the circumstances stated above, I find that the action of the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dibrugarh Division taken under his Memo.No.A307/EDA/Zutlibari dated 18.07.2008 has been in accordance with the rules in force. I find no gro