SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2007 Supreme(MP) 528

2007(2) JLJ 405
A.K. Gohil and Sanjay Yadav, JJ.
Union of India and others v. Rajesh Sharma and another
Writ Petitions (S) No. 183 and 180 of 2006 (Gwalior);
Decided on 11.5.2007.

Advocates:
V.K. Sharma, Assistant Solicitor General for petitioners;
Madhukar Rao for respondent No.1.

Headnote:(1) Department of Post Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 -- Rr.10(1)(a), 10(1)(b) and 8(1) -- show cause notice issued under R.10(1)(a) -- reply of notice furnished by employee concerned under R.10(1)(b) -- instead of making further enquiry, services cannot be terminated by giving one month‘s notice under R.8(1) -- it is breach of principles of natural justice -- respondent is civil servant.

       The respondent in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the petitioner department was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent.

       On 31.7.2001 a notice purportedly under rule 8 of Department of Post Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 was issued.

       The respondent-employee, after receiving the show cause filed his reply. The Department, as it appears from the record, instead of taking decision on the aforesaid show cause notice, issued another notice in pursuance to rule 8(1) of Department of Post Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 on 18.8.2001, indicating that his services shall stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of period of one month. Subsequently, the services of the respondent was terminated on expiry of one month. [Paras 3 to 5

       Held : The authorities after issuing a notice under the rule 10(1)(a) and receiving the reply under rule 10(1)(b), instead of proceeding further and holding enquiry short circuit the same by resorting to the provision under rule 8 of issuing one month‘s notice. The Sevak is thus deprived of the valuable right of hearing guaranteed under the Statutory Rules. Thus, the contention raised by the petitioner department that no prejudice was caused to the Sevak when an action is taken in accordance with rule cannot be accepted for the reasons that the authorities having resorted to exercise powers under a particular rule cannot without any justification embark upon another set of rules which is detrimental to the interest of a Sevak who happens to be at a receiving end.

       The inevitable conclusion is that the order of termination being without following the statutory provision is bad. It was urged by the counsel for the petitioner that even the procedure prescribed would have resulted in the same conclusion does not sound to logic. It is not disputed that the statutory rules govern the conditions of service of the Sevaks and the Rules prescribe the procedure to be followed when a punitive action is contemplated and under these rules substantive right of reasonable opportunity of hearing is guaranteed and the non-following the same has definitely caused prejudice to the Sevak shose employment has been terminated. (2006)2 SCC 482 and (2002)9 SCC 453 distinguished. AIR 1977 SC 1677, AIR 1967 SC 884 and AIR 1991 SC 53 followed. [Paras 16 & 18

       (2) Civil Servant -- services sought to be terminated -- principles of natural justice to be followed if termination is punitive in nature. (2006)1 SCC 667 and 2007 AIR sew 1995 followed. [Para 16

       (3) Natural Justice -- principles cannot be adopted where instead of justice injustice results by adopting them. (1992)2 SCC 206 followed. [Para 17

       (4) Precedent -- decision is an authority for what it decides -- not what can logically be deduced therefrom -- ratio of case must be understood having regard to its factual situation. (2006) 11 SCC 356, (2004) 11 SCC 672, (2005) 11 SCC 45 and (2005)5 SCC 91 followed. [Para 20

       ¼1½ Mkd foHkkx xzkeh.k Mkd lsod ¼vkpj.k vkSj fu;kstu½ fu;e] 2001 && fu-10¼1½¼d½] 10¼1½¼[k½ rFkk 8¼1½ && fu- 10¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh && lacaf/kr deZpkjh }kjk fu- 10¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu lwpuk dk mÙkj fn;k x;k && vkxs tk¡p fd, tkus ds LFkku ij fu-8¼1½ ds v/khu ,d ekl dh lwpuk ns dj lsok lekIr ugha dh tk ldrh && ;g uSlfxZd ds fl)karksa dk Hkax gS && izR;FkhZ flfoy lsod gSA

       ;kph foHkkx }kjk tkjh foKkiu ds vuqlj.k esa izR;FkhZ vfrfjDr foHkkxh; fMyhojh ,tsaV dh Hkk¡fr fu;qDr fd;k x;k FkkA

       31-7-2001 dks Mkd foHkkx xzkeh.k Mkd lsod ¼vkpj.k vkSj fu;kstu½ fu;e] 2001 ds fu;e 8 ds v/khu vk‘kf;r lwpuk tkjh dh xbZA

       izR;FkhZ deZpkjh us dkj.k crkvks izkIr gksus ds i‘pkr~ viuk mÙkj Qkby dj fn;kA tSlk izrhr gksrk gS] foHkkx us iwoksZDr dkj.k crkvks lwpuk ij fofu‘p; djus ds LFkku ij 18-8-2001 dks Mkd foHkkx xzkeh.k Mkd lsod ¼vkpj.k vkSj fu;kstu½ fu;e] 2001 ds fu;e 8¼1½ ds vuqlj.k esa ;g minf‘kZr djrs gq, nwljh lwpuk tkjh dj nh fd ,d ekl dh vof/k ds volku dh rkjh[k dks mldh lsok lekIr gks tk,xhA ¼iSjk 3 ls 5

       vfHkfu/kkZfjr % fu;e 10¼1½¼d½ ds v/khu lwpuk nsus vkSj fu;e 10¼1½¼[k½ ds v/khu mÙkj izkIr djus ds i‘pkr~ izkf/kdkfj;ksa us vkxs dk;Zokgh djus vkSj tk¡p djus ds LFkku ij fu;e 8 ds mica/k ds v/khu ,d ekl dh lwpuk tkjh djus ds LFkku ij fu;e 8 ds mica/k ds v/khu ,d ekl dh lwpuk tkjh fd, tkus dk vkJ; ys dj y?kq ifjiFku dj fy;kA bl izdkj lsod] dkuwuh fu;eksa ds v/khu izR;kHkwr lqus tkus ds ewY;oku vf/kdkj ls oafpr gks x;kA bl izdkj ;kph foHkkx dk ;g ladFku fd tc dksbZ dkjZokbZ fu;e ds vuqlkj dh xbZ gS] lsod izfrdwyr% izHkkfor ugha gqvk gS] bu dkj.kksa ls Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk fd izkf/kdkfj;ksa us tc ,d fof‘k"V fu;e ds v/khu ‘kfDr;k¡ iz;qDr fd, tkus dk vkJ; fy;k Fkk] fcuk fdlh U;k;kSfpR; ds fu;eksa ds vU; leqPp; ij lokj ugha gks ldrs tks ml lsod ds fgrksa ds izfrdwy gS tks ml vfiz; dkjZokbZ dk y{; gSA

       vfuok;Z ifj.kke ;g gS fd lsok&lekfIr dk vkns‘k dkuwuh mica/k ds vuqlj.k fcuk gksus ds dkj.k nks"kiw.kZ gSA ;kph dh vksj ls dkmUlsy us ;g vuqjks/k fd;k fd fofgr izfØ;k dk ifj.kke Hkh ogh gksrk] rdZlaxr ugha gSA ;g fookfnr ugha gS fd dkuwuh fu;eksa ls lsodksa dh lsok dh ‘krksZa ls ‘kkflr gSa vkSj tc naMkRed dkjZokbZ ifjdfYir gks] vuqlfjr dh tkus okyh izfØ;k fu;eksa esa fofgr gS vkSj bu fu;eksa ds v/khu lqus tkus dk egRoiw.kZ vf/kdkj izR;kHkwr gS vkSj mldk vuqlj.k ugha fd, tkus ls fuf‘pr gh lsod izfrdwyr% izHkkfor gqvk gS ftldk fu;kstu lekIr dj fn;k x;k gSA ¼2006½2 ,l lh lh 482 rFkk ¼2002½9 ,l lh lh 453 izHksfnrA , vkb vkj 1977 ,l lh 1677] , vkb vkj 1967 ,l lh 884 rFkk , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 53 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 18

       ¼2½ flfoy lsod && lsok lekIr dh tkuk bZfIlr && uSlfxZd U;k; ds fl)karksa dk vuqlj.k fd;k tkuk gksxk] ;fn lsok lekfIr nkafMd izd`fr dh gSA ¼2006½1 ,l lh lh 667 rFkk 2007 , vkb vkj ,l lh MCY;w 1955 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 16

       ¼3½ uSlfxZd U;k; && fl)kar vaxhdkj ugha fd, tk ldrs tc muds vaxhdj.k ls U;k; ds LFkku ij vU;k; ifj.kkfer gksA ¼1992½2 ,l lh lh 206 vuqljfrA ¼iSjk 17

       ¼4½ iwoZ fu.kZ; && fu.kZ; mlds fy, izkf/kdkj gS tks mlesa fofuf‘pr fd;k x;k gS && og ugha tks mlesa ls rkfdZd :i ls vuqfer fd;k tk ldrk gS && rkfF;d vofLFkfr ij /;ku nsrs gq, ekeys dk rdkZ/kkj le>k tkuk pkfg,A ¼2006½11 ,l lh lh 356] ¼2004½11 ,l lh lh 672] ¼2005½11 ,l lh lh 45 rFkk ¼2005½5 ,l lh lh 91 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 20

ORDER

Yadav, J. -- 1. The decision rendered in this writ petition shall govern by disposal of WP(S) No.180/2006, as the parties submit that issues involved in these writ petitions is common and be disposed of by common order.

2. The Union of India, through Secretary, Ministry of Telecommunication and other functionaries being aggrieved of the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur (hereinafter shall be referred as Tribunal) in OA 633/2001 has preferred the present writ petitions invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The Tribunal vide impugned order dated 18.10.2005 has directed the reinstatement with all consequential benefits by setting aside order of termination on the ground that the principle of natural justice was not followed.

3. The relevant facts leading to the lis mentioned above are that the, respondent in pursuance to an advertisement issued by the petitioner department was appointed as Extra Departmental Delivery Agent (hereinafter referred to as EDDA) for Gwalior city in the minimum of pay scale of Rs.1740-30-2640 vide order dated 7.2.2000 the order of appointment stipulated :

"DEPARTMENT OF POST INDIA

THE POSTMASTER, LASHKAR HEAD POST OFFICES,

Memo No. H2-Misc/2000

Dated at Lashkar 7.2.2000

In pursuance of the order contained in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Gwalior, Memo No.H2/9/Redeployment/99-2000 dated 28.1.2000 Shri Rajesh Sharma S/o Shri Radha Vallabh Sharma is hereby appointed as Extra Department Delivery Agent in the Speed Post Business Centre, Gwalior RS PO with effect from the date of joining on the post at the minimum the Time Related Continuity Allowance (TRCA) Rs.1740-30-2640 and shall be paid such allowances as are admissible from time to time.

2. Shri Rajesh Sharma should clearly understand that his employment as EDDA shall be in the nature of contractual liable to be terminated by him or by the undersigned by notifying the order in writing and that his conduct and service shall be governed by the Posts & Telegraph Extra Department Agent (Conduct and Service) Rules 1964 as amended from time to time.

3. This appointment is subject to satisfactory verification of character and other testimonials.

(A.K. Tomar)

Postmaster, Lashkar HO"

4. That on 31.7.2001 a notice purportedly under rule 8 of Department of Post Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 was issued. The said notice was issued in pursuance to the order dated 21.6.2001 passed by the Principal Chief Post Master General, Bhopal whereby it was ordered to cancel the recruitment and terminate the services of all the 5 appointed candidates after observing the usual formalities. The reasons shown for issuing the aforesaid notice was :

"DEPARTMENT OF POST

Memo No. H2/Misc/2000

Dated at Lashkar 31.7.2001

Notice

Under rule No.8 of Department of Posts Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001.

1. In pursuance of the order contained in Senior Superintendent of Post Offices Gwalior Division Gwalior letter No.H2/9/redeploymenti 99-2000 dated 28.1.2000 Shri Rajesh Sharma was provisionally appointed as EDDA in Speed Post Centre Gwalior RS PO vide this office memo of even No. dated 7/2/21/2/2000 after completing pre-appointment formalities.

2. Later one applicant Shri Ajay Kumar S/o late Shri Thakurdas filed an application before the CAT, Jabalpur against his non-appointment to the post of EDDA. The application of the candidate has been disposed of at admission stage directing Chief Post Master General, Bhopal to dispose of the representation of the applicant by speaking order within a period of 8 weeks. The representation of the candidate was rejected by the Principal Chief Post Master General, Bhopal vide his order No. Inv/cc/STA-2-256/2001 dated 21.6.2001 and in this order it was also ordered to cancel the recruitment and terminate the services of all the 5 appointed candidates after observing the usual formalities. (copy of PCPMG Bhopal letter in enclosed).

3. Therefore the unde
































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top