Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Santhosh V vs Externel Affairs on 20 June, 2024
`CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.180/00313/2023
Thursday, this the 20th day of June, 2024.
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.HARIPAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Mr. ANINDO MAJUMDAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Santhosh. V., Aged 42 years, S/o S.Viswambharan
Ex- Junior Passport Assistant, Regional Passport office,
Trivandrum, SNSM Building, Karalkkada Junction, Kaithamukku
Trivandrum- 695024, Residing at Santhosh Bhavan, Archal
Nediyara (P.O), Anchaal, Kollam (DIST), Kerala- 691306,
- Applicant
[By Advocates: Sri.M.R.Hariraj, Smt.Vidya A.K., Smt. Alina Anna Kose,
Smt.Akhila S., Smt. Megna Mariyam M., Smt.Gayatri Viswanathan]
Versus
1. Union of India, represented by its Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi 110001.
2. Chief Passport Officer and Joint Secretary CPV, Ministry of External
Affairs, New Delhi 110001.
3. Passport Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, Trivandrum- 695024.
- Respondents
[By Advocate: Sri.V.A.Shaji, ACGSC]
The application having been heard on 07.06.2024, the Tribunal on
20.06.2024 delivered the following:
O.A.313/2023 2
ORDER
Justice K.Haripal Applicant is an Ex-Serviceman. He was appointed as Junior Passport Assistant, JPA for short, on 21.03.2022 under the 3 rd respondent. He worked as such from 21.03.2022 to 05.11.2022. Before his appointment as Junior Passport Assistant he had undergone a selection process in the Indian Bank. However, the offer of appointment as Clerk in the bank came while working in the Passport office. He is a native of Kollam. According to the applicant, he was given an impression from the bank that he would be given a convenient posting in Kollam. On that basis, he tendered technical resignation from the Passport office with a request to retain his lien. That request was allowed in part, accepting his resignation, he was relieved of his duties on 05.11.2022. Thus he left the service of the 3rd respondent and joined the bank as Clerk. But to his utter dismay, his posting is in a branch in Tamil Nadu, about 125 kms away from his place of residence. Thus he gave Annexure-A3 representation seeking to cancel the resignation and to reinstate him in Central Passport Organisation, which stands rejected by the impugned O.A.313/2023 3 order dated 22.02.2023. He has now approached this Tribunal seeking to quash Annexure-A4 and to direct the respondents to consider reinstatement with all consequential benefits.
2. According to the applicant, he has approached the respondents seeking to reinstate within 65 days from the date of relief from the Passport office. Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules 2021, Rules for short, enables him to withdraw resignation in public interest, subject to satisfying the conditions. He had tendered resignation for taking up appointment as Clerk in Indian Bank. It does not reflect on his integrity, efficiency or conduct. But he was not given a posting as expected. It is a material change in circumstances which led to withdraw resignation. There is no improper conduct on his part between the date of resignation and withdrawal. He had moved the respondents with representation within 90 days, in tune with Rule 26(5)(iii) of the Rules. The post vacated by him is still remaining vacant, there is no justification in refusing permission as sought for.
3. According to the applicant, Annexure-A4 has been passed O.A.313/2023 4 without application of mind. It has been issued in a mechanical manner, without considering relevant aspects. Citing the case of one Udayaraj Janardhanan, Annexure-A6, he said that he is entitled to get the very same treatment.
4. The respondents have opposed the contentions of the applicant. They have challenged the very maintainability of the O.A. According to them, while working as Junior Passport Assistant, he tendered his resignation; after accepting the technical resignation he was relieved of the post held by him in the Passport office. Thereafter, when he moved representation for withdrawing the resignation, the request was turned down in accordance with paragraphs 3 and 6 of the DoPT Office Memorandum dated 10.06.2019, Annexure-R2.
5. According to the respondents, the applicant had resigned from the service of the 3rd respondent to take up appointment in the Indian Bank, which is owned by the Government of India. At that time, he was under temporary service and was on probation. Specifically referring to conditions 3 and 6 of Annexure-R2, they said that the O.A.313/2023 5 applicant is not entitled to withdraw resignation.
6. According to them, decision of this Tribunal in Annexure-A6 order is not relevant and applicable to the facts of the case. Indian Bank comes under a corporation or company wholly or substantially owned or controlled by the Government. In the circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to get any relief.
7. We heard learned counsel on both sides.
8. There is no dispute that the applicant, an Ex-Serviceman, had joined the Passport office as Junior Passport Assistant on 21.03.2022 as advised by the Staff Selection Commission. Before that, he had undergone the selection process in the Indian Bank, results of which had come out only when he was working as JPA. He is a native of Anchal in Kollam district, whereas his place of posting is under the 3 rd respondent Passport Officer, Thiruvananthapuram. So, he preferred a posting in his native place. It appears that the bank job is better from the financial point of view also. Expecting posting in a branch proximate to his house he tendered technical resignation, which was accepted and he was O.A.313/2023 6 relieved by the 3rd respondent on 05.11.2022. Thus he had worked in the Passport office only for a short spell from 21.03.2022 to 05.11.2022. He was relieved before the satisfactory completion of probation.
9. According to the learned counsel, contrary to his expectation, he was not given a posting in Kollam or nearby places, but was posted in Tamil Nadu, which is far away from his place of residence. Moreover, it is submitted that his wife is a cancer patient, who needs his presence at home. Thus, within 65 days of tendering resignation the applicant approached the respondents seeking to rescind resignation and reinstate in the post of Junior Passport Assistant. However, by a cryptic order, Annexure-A4, he was told that the request has not been accepted. The applicant has approached this Tribunal for annulling the order.
10. It is stated by the applicant that under Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules, he is entitled to withdraw resignation. Citing Rule 26(5)
(iii), it is submitted that he approached the respondents within 90 days, so that satisfying the other conditions, he is entitled to be reinstated.
11. Evidently, the provisions under the CCS (Pension) Rules O.A.313/2023 7 cannot be attracted in the case of the applicant since he had commenced service long after introduction of the New Pension Scheme. However, without adverting to any provision or standing instructions, by a one line order, his representation has been turned down.
12. Sri.M.R.Hariraj, learned Senior Counsel submitted that conditions 3 and 6 of Annexure-R2 Office Memorandum cannot be highlighted against the applicant. According to him, the applicant has worked in the bank only for 75 days. Though detailed representations were given, even a proper reply was not given, citing reasons. According to him, the bank is controlled by the Reserve Bank of India. Moreover, the applicant was not working as temporary hand, but was a probationer in a permanent post under the Government of India. Even though he had represented for retaining his lien, nothing has been mentioned in Annexure-A2 when his application for resignation was accepted. He was not given a posting by the bank as expected, which is a material change in circumstances, which led to withdrawal of resignation.
13. On the other hand, according to Sri.V.A.Shaji, the learned O.A.313/2023 8 Additional Central Government Standing Counsel, after having chosen to go for better pastures, the applicant wanted to return to the Passport office. However, conditions 3 and 6 of Annexure-R2 stand on the way of accepting his application. According to him, Indian Bank is a bank fully owned by the Union of India, under the Ministry of Finance. After tendering resignation for joining the bank owned by the Government he cannot beat a retract.
14. Annexure-A4 is the impugned order. As pointed out earlier, it is a one line order stating simply that the request has not been acceded to. It was only when the order was challenged before this Tribunal the respondents have given the version placing reliance on Annexure-R2 Office Memorandum. The conditions in Annexure-R2 are in pari materia to Rule 26(5) of the CCS (Pension) Rules. But When a public authority like the respondents give response to a representation of its former employee such response should reflect application of mind. The applicant was a former employee of the Passport office. He worked under the 3 rd respondent for more than seven months and left the office tendering O.A.313/2023 9 technical resignation for taking up appointment in the bank. Later, he wanted to beat a retreat and get reinstated cancelling the resignation. But such a request has been turned down, on the face of the records, in mechanical manner without giving reasons for rejecting the plea. That is not expected from a public authority.
15. When a statutory functionary passes an order, its reasoning must be decipherable from the order. The order impugned is cryptic. For the primary reason that the Annexure-A4 does not reflect application of mind it is liable to be interfered with.
16. In this connection, the following observations in Chairman and Managing Director, United Commercial Bank v. P.C.Kakkar [(2013) 4 SCC 364] of the Apex Court, though in a slightly different context, are apposite:
"The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120 (NIRC)] it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons O.A.313/2023 10 substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance."
17. We are not intending to delve into the questions as to whether the bank is owned or controlled by the Government, whether the withdrawal has been made as a result of material change in the circumstances which originally had compelled him to tender the resignation etc. Suffice it to say that since Annexure-A4, on the face of the records does not reflect application of mind, we are inclined to quash the same. All the relevant aspects including the illness of the wife of the applicant should have been considered. We are also sure that these are matters to be considered with an element of compassion and empathy, if O.A.313/2023 11 the vacancy remains unfilled. Resultantly, Annexure-A4 is quashed. Competent authority among the respondents shall consider the representation taking into account all the relevant aspects in proper perspective within a period of thirty days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
The Original Application is disposed of as above. No costs.
(Dated this the 20th June, 2024)
ANINDO MAJUMDAR JUSTICE K.HARIPAL
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
ds
O.A.313/2023 12
List of Annexures
Annexure A1- The true copy of the representation dated 12/10/2022 submitted by the applicant Annexure A2- True copy of letter No.V.VI/578/57/2022 dated 27/10/2022 Annexure A3- A true copy of the representation dated 10/01/2023 submitted by the applicant Annexure A4- A true copy of the letter No.TVM/586/75/2022 dated 22/02/2023 along with retyped copy Annexure A5- True copy of representation dated 19/04/2023 submitted by the applicant Annexure A6- True copy of final order dated 24/06/2015 in OA No. 865/2014 on the files of this Honourable Tribunal Annexure R1- True copy of the letter No. TVM/586/75/22 dated 04.11.2022 issued by the 3rd respondent to the applicant.
Annexure R2- True copy of the para 3 and 6 of the DoPTS OM No.28035/2/2014-Estt(A) dated 10.6.2019.
**************