GDS termination alleging forged appointment requires full disciplinary enquiry under Rules 9-10 as misconduct, not Rule 8 notice; Rule 4(3)(c) mandates hearing for pre-recruitment irregularities despite Tribunal directions.

ORDER

By Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)

The present original application has been filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs:-

(i) To issue an order/direction in the suitable nature quashing the order dated 10.02.2011 (Annexure A-1) and further direct the authority not to interfere functioning of applicant as Branch Post Master Lapkani, District Deoria in view of the appointment letter dated 27.12.2005 issued by the respondent authorities.

(1a) To issue an order or direction in the suitable nature, quashing the order impugned dated 5.11.2020 passed by respondent No. 4 (Annexure No. A-1 to compilation No. 1) and further be pleased to reinstate the applicant on his respective post and regular salary may be paid to him.

(ii) To issue an order/direction in the suitable nature mandamus directing the respondents to pay salary to the applicant regularly as admissible under the rules.

(iii) To issue any order or direction, which this Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

(iv) To award the cost of the application to the applicant”.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant had been working under the respondent department since 08.12.1999 and was paid salary regularly as per rules. On 20.09.2005, he applied for appointment against a clear and existing vacancy of G.D.S. Branch Post Master, Lapkani (Gauri Bazar), District Deoria, which arose due to the retirement of the incumbent, Hari Prasad. After due consideration, the competent authority issued an appointment letter in favour of the applicant on 27.12.2005. Despite the valid appointment letter, respondent nos. 4 and 5 did not permit the applicant to join duties. The applicant repeatedly requested permission to join, including by an application dated 03.01.2006, but was unlawfully prevented from joining. As the post continued to exist, there was no justification for denying him joining pursuant to the appointment letter. Feeling aggrieved, the applicant approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 93 of 2006, in which an interim order was granted. After hearing the matter, the Tribunal finally decided the case. However, the respondent department, by an order dated 22.10.2008, illegally rejected the rightful claim of the applicant. Consequently, the applicant again approached this Tribunal by filing O.A. No. 1187 of 2008, which was also finally decided. Thereafter, the respondents conducted an enquiry at their own level and ultimately issued a formal appointment order in favour of the applicant on 21.03.2009. The applicant joined service on 23.03.2009. Subsequently, on his request, he was transferred on the same post and pay scale from Pachrukha (Sarawn) to Lapkani (Gauri Bazar), where he took charge on 17.06.2009. The applicant also underwent the requisite training for Branch Post Master on 19.06.2009 and 20.06.2009, successfully completed the same and obtained a certificate and thereafter assumed full charge. On 07.12.2009, the applicant requested that his previous service be counted for all consequential benefits as per rules. However, instead of granting the legitimate benefit, respondent no. 5 issued an impugned notice dated 10.02.2011 proposing cancellation of the applicant’s appointment and transfer orders. Aggrieved, the applicant filed the present Original Application. During its pendency, respondent no. 4 passed a termination order dated 05.11.2020 on the basis