Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Rajmal Singh S/O Sh. Maman Singh vs U.T. Administration Through Its ... on 11 November, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A.NO.115-HR-2010 Decided on :11th November, 2011
CORAM : HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) &
HONBLE MRS. PROMILLA ISSAR, MEMBER (A).
RAJMAL SINGH S/O SH. MAMAN SINGH, R/O VILLAGE & POST OFFICE BHAT GAON (DUNGURAN), SONEPAT.
APPLICANT
BY : MR. G.C. BABBAR, ADVOCATE
VERSUS
1. U.T. ADMINISTRATION THROUGH ITS SECRETARY, GOVT. OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POST, NEW DLEHI.
2. CHIEF POST MASTER GENERAL, HARYANA CIRCLE, AMBALA.
3. SR. SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, SONEPAT DIVISION, SONEPAT.
4. ASSTT.SUPDT. OF POST OFFICES, SUB-DIVISION, SONEPAT.
RESPONDENTS
By : MR. ROHIT SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR MR. DEEPAK AGNIHOTRI,
ADVOCATE, COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS.
ORDER
HONBLE MRS. SHYAMA DOGRA, MEMBER (J) The facts, as projected by the applicant, are that he was selected and appointed as GDS/MC Deepalpur in account with Bahalgarh SO vide order dated 3.5.2008 (Annexure A-10) in pursuance of a selection initiated by Respondent no. 4 vide Circular dated 4.2.2008 sent to the Employment Exchange as well as Sarpanch Gram Panchayat, Deepalpur. The applicant was selected from amongst a number of candidates who had participated in the said selection. The name of the applicant was also included in the seniority list.
2. A charge-sheet (Annexure P-13) was issued to one Shri J.K. Awasthi, SDI (P), Kaithal, on the allegation that he had ignored the candidature of one Angrej Singh, who had secured 58.16 marks, on the ground of non-submission of requisite documents and has wrongly appointed the applicant on the said post, who had secured lesser marks.
3. Therefore, the respondents issued a notice dated 4.1.2010 (Annexure A-1/A), for termination of the services of the applicant w.e.f. the date of expiry of the period of one month from the date on which the notice was served, without assigning any reasons. The applicant filed an O.A.No. 54-HR-200 and in the meantime, the said notice was cancelled vide order dated 4.2.2010 (Annexure A-1/B) and a fresh notice dated 5.2.2010 (Annexure A-1) was issued giving one months time for termination of his service. The applicant stated that in view of one months notice given to him, his services would have been terminated by 5.3.2010 but he was allowed to continue in the service and the effect of the notice was in-operation and applicant was paid salary for the period from 5.3.2010 to 6.7.2010 (Annexure A-1/C). The applicant submitted representation dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure A-15) followed by letter by Employees' Union vide letter dated 23.7.2010 (Annexure A-16), which has not been considered till date.
4. The applicant submits that the impugned order dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure A-1/C) is not sustainable in the eyes of the law as the applicant has not been given a valid notice as required under rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, nor has he been paid a sum equivalent to the amount in lieu thereof. Moreover, once he has been allowed to continue after the notice period, the order has become inoperative. The notice is in violation of the principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. He has, thus, filed this O.A. for quashing of the order, annexure A1 and Annexure A-1/C with directions to the respondent to reinstate him in service.
5. The respondents have filed a reply. They submit that the GDS is a part time job. Under the rules, for the purpose of termination of service of such employee, one months notice is required to be given and no reasons in such notice ware required to be assigned. They submit that as per rules, GDS is a part time employee and a candidate applying for the post of GDS will have to supplement his income from other employment sources so as to have adequate means of livelihood to support himself and has family and a certificate to this effect will have to be obtained from the candidate before he / she is given an appointment letter.
6. The respondents further submit that though as per Annexure R-1 dated 17.9.2003, the sole criteria for selection to the post of all categories of GDS is merit but it is also subject to fulfilling of other eligibility conditions like providing of space for post office, taking up residence in the B.O. village before appointment etc.
7. It is also one of the contentions in the said notification that since GDS is a part-time employee, he will have to supplement his income from other employment sources, so as to have adequate means of livelihood to support himself and his family. A certificate to this effect will have to be obtained from the candidate before he / she is given an appointment letter.
8. It is the pleaded case of the respondents that GDS, who has not rendered more than three years continuous employment, shall be liable to termination at any time by giving one months notice in writing given by either of the parties, therefore, since the applicants order of termination is simplicitor in nature and rightly passed by the respondents. The applicant has no case in his favour and the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
9. The other contention of the respondents is that on receipt of various complaints against one Sh. J.K. Awasthi, SDI (P) Sonepat, on enquiry it was found that Sh. J.K. Awasthi who had made the selection in this case, has wrongly rejected the case of the other candidate namely Sh. Angrej Singh on the ground that he has not submitted the requisite income certificate from revenue authorities, though he had secured highest marks in S.C. category for which the post in question was reserved, whereas obtaining such certificate from the revenue authorities is not a condition. The candidate himself can certify giving the details of other sources of income regarding his livelihood. Therefore, the applicant has been wrongly appointed ignoring the claim of more meritorious candidates, therefore, there is no illegality in the termination order.
10. The respondents have rebutted the contention of the applicant that since he was allowed to continue even after termination notice, and another one months notice was required to be issued to him, on the ground that after filing of the O.A. the concerned respondents were wrongly informed about grant of stay and they were not sure as to whether after filing of the O.A., stay had been granted and on receipt of the relevant information, his services were terminated. Therefore, there was no need to issue a fresh notice to the applicant.
11. The applicant has filed a rejoinder reiterating the submissions made in the Original Application and further submitted that his termination order has been passed by the respondents with malafide intentions.
12. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on the file and also perused the original record.
13. It is apparent from the pleadings of the parties that the said selection was carried out by Shri J.K. Avasthi, SDI (P) Sonepat, who rejected the application of Shri Angrej Singh, on the ground that no income certificate was submitted by him issued by the Revenue Authority. Admittedly, the requirement under the instructions is that one should have adequate means of livelihood to support himself and his family and a certificate to this effect will have to be obtained from the candidate before he / she is given an appointment letter. There is no requirement that such certificate has to be issued by the Revenue Authorities. In view of this specific position under the rules, the rejection of the candidature of Shri Angrej Singh was illegal and against the rules as he was at Sr. No. 1 in the merit. As a result thereof, the appointment of the applicant on the basis of such selection has to be declared as void ab initio. Thus, the respondents have rightly cancelled the selection and terminated the services of the applicant. The applicant was given notice of one month and only thereafter his services have been terminated and as such the requirement of the rules stands complied with. We do not find any grounds made out by the applicant for interference with the impugned order as in view of the facts narrated in the preceding paras, no second notice was required to be issued. The respondent are directed to consider the case of the most meritorious candidate in the merit list as per rules and law for appointment against the post in question, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
14. Thus, in the conspectus of the facts of the case as above, we find no merit in this case, hence, the O.A. stands dismissed and disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(PROMILLA ISSAR) (SHYAMA DOGRA)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Place: Chandigarh.
Dated: 11th, November, 2011
HC*
1
O.A.NO.115-HR-2010