Jharkhand High Court
Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited Through ... vs Bharti Kumari Jha on 1 September, 2022
Author: Aparesh Kumar Singh
Bench: Aparesh Kumar Singh, Deepak Roshan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P (S) No. 3299 of 2018
1. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited through the
Chief Managing Director, New Delhi
2. The Assistant General Manager (Personal-III),
Office of Chief Managing Director, New Delhi
3. The Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL,
Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi
4. The Telecom District Manager, BSNL, Dumka through its
Telecom District Manager, Dumka Sri Pushp Kishore Singh, Deoghar
5. The Divisional Engineer (Administration),
Office of Telecom District Manager, BSNL, Dumka--- --- Petitioners
Versus
Bharti Kumari Jha --- --- Respondent
---
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aparesh Kumar Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Deepak Roshan
---
For the Petitioners: Mr. Prabhat Kr. Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondent: Mrs. M.M. Pal, Sr. Advocate, Rukmini Kumari,
Ruby Pandey, Satya Shatakshi, Advocates
----
Aparesh Kumar Singh, J:
16 / 01.09.2022 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned senior counsel for
the Respondent.
2. By the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 passed in
O.A/051/00112/2014, learned CAT has been pleased to direct the Respondent / petitioner herein Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) to grant promotion to the applicant to the post of Telecom Mechanic forthwith from the date the person below her in the list was given appointment. She would also be entitled to all consequential benefits. A cost of Rs. 10,000/- has also been imposed upon the Respondent No. 4-Telecome District Manager, BSNL, Dumka to be paid to the applicant.
3. The applicant has approached the learned CAT claiming that in the recruitment exercise to the post of Telecom Mechanic held in the year 2012 against 50% LDCE quota, applicant stood at serial no. 1 in the merit list published on 20.12.2013 for six vacancies for Dumka. However, in the subsequent list published on 14.03.2014, her name did not find place. Further, candidates appearing lower than the applicant in the merit list published on 20.12.2013 have been given promotion. It was brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal by the applicant that the TDM, Dumka has constituted an Inquiry Committee regarding appointment of the applicant and the Committee was required to submit Inquiry Report within 15 days. However, Inquiry 2 Committee had not submitted its report within 15 days which expired on 11.08.2017. It was also brought to the notice of the learned Tribunal that the Respondent BSNL had also not complied with the order dated 24.03.2015 passed in O.A/051/00071/2014 in the case of two other Telecom Mechanics namely Mohan Choudhary and Abhay Shankar Jha who were also in the list of successful candidates published on 20.12.2013 for the post of Telecom Mechanics.
4. Be it indicated here that the learned Tribunal quoted para-6 of the order passed in O.A/051/00071/2014 which made reference of the order passed in O.A. No. 144/1999 dated 15.04.2002, whereby direction was issued to the General Manager, Telecom, Darbhanga Division to verify the case of the applicants individually regarding their claim of rendering services as Daily Rated Mazdoor and if they fall within the ambit of the cases disposed of by the learned Tribunal earlier in O.A. No. 599/1996, then to pass necessary orders in that regard within the stipulated period. Learned Tribunal had opined in the case of Mohan Choudhary and Abhay Shankar Jha that they had failed to conclude such an inquiry / investigation. Therefore, while allowing relief prayed by those applicants, Tribunal also observed that if the Respondents choose to continue with these efforts and reach a conclusion, if ever, they will be at liberty to take such consequential action, as may be justifiable, within the applicable rules / guidelines. However, till they do so, they cannot hold the future of the applicants to ransom indefinitely. Finding the case of this applicant on similar footing as that of Mohan Choudhary and Abhay Shankar Jha, learned Tribunal issued direction to the BSNL to promote this applicant to the post of Telecom Mechanic forthwith.
5. Be it noted here that when the matter was taken up on 05.02.2020, this Court after hearing the parties had passed the following orders.
"This matter has a chequered history. Without getting into minute details thereof, it is only necessary to record that the employer BSNL was under a direction of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) vide order dated 15.04.2002 passed in OA No.335 of 1999 and other analogous cases to conclude a verification exercise within stipulated period, of cases of individual applicants regarding their claim of rendering service as daily rated mazdoor and thereafter pass necessary orders in that regard. After passing of the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 in OA No.051/00112 of 2014 in the case of the applicant seeking promotion to the post of Telecom Mechanic through LDC Limited Departmental Competitive Exam, the committee constituted by the BSNL has submitted a report annexed as Annexure-18 at page 65 onwards enclosed to the letter dated 27.09.2017 by which the committee was constituted. The report is dated 31.01.2018. It seems from the reply to the rejoinder filed by applicant on 08.01.2020 that some 3 explanation was asked from the applicant by the Telecom District Manager, Dumka vide Letter dated 20.02.2018 on the subject of confirmation of temporary status, subsequent regularization of service and Telecom Mechanic Promotion. She has replied thereto vide part of the same D-Series. Learned counsel for the petitioner by referring to the Committee's report dated 31.01.2018 has submitted that the very certificate of the employee between February 1985 to July 1997 of her working as Daily Rated Mazdoor in the Department was found to be fake and no payment for period between April, 1995 to July, 1997 has been certified by the -2- Accounts Officer, Cash. By the impugned order, learned Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) had directed the BSNL to grant her promotion forthwith from the date the person below in the list were given appointment and consequential benefits also. A cost of Rs.10,000/- has also been imposed upon the Telecom District Manager, BSNL, Dumka.
It is not clear as to what decision has been taken by the BSNL on the basis of show cause issued upon the applicant/respondent herein.
Without observing anything on this issue at this stage, lest it may prejudice the case of the parties, BSNL is directed to inform the Court as to what action has been taken in this regard. Let an affidavit containing such decision /action taken be brought on record within a period of six weeks. The affidavit shall be affirmed by the Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL Jharkhand Circle, Ranchi (petitioner no.3).
In the meantime, further proceedings in the contempt matter before the learned CAT shall remain stayed.
List this case after six weeks.
6. A supplementary affidavit was filed thereafter by the petitioner on 20.08.2020 stated that the investigation report found prima facie involvement of seven officials / Mazdoors in illegal conferment of TSM status to the Respondent Bharti Kumari Jha. In view of vigilance investigation report, JTC Administration had issued direction vide letter dated 10.12.2019 to TDM, BSNL, Dumka to file appropriate FIR in local police station. Further supplementary affidavit was filed on 08.12.2020 by the Chief General Manager, Telecom, BSNL, Jharkhand Circle, stating that the reply submitted by the Respondent in response to the show-cause notice was not found satisfactory and a decision was taken to disengage the Respondent by passing speaking order dated 01.12.2020. The same was communicated to the TDM, Dumka vide letter dated 01.12.2020 for onward communication and necessary action. Thereafter. TDM, Dumka has taken a decision to terminate the engagement vide order dated 02.12.2020 bearing Office order No. Estt./TDM/DMK/Smt. Bharti Kumari Jha DRM/2020-2021/10 under the signature of DE (Admin), O/o the TDM, Dumka to that effect and has been communicated to the Respondent as well which is annexed as Annexure-26 to the writ petition, part of the supplementary affidavit. The situation as it stands 4 today is that the Respondent is not under the engagement of the petitioner BSNL in connection with the Vigilance Inquiry conducted regarding her claim for regularization in service. In the light of the aforesaid facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has inter-alia made the following submissions; Though the Respondent was never engaged as Daily Wage / Rated Mazdoor in any of the Establishment of the petitioner, but on the strength of a so called gradation list of DRM dated 23.10.1992 as well as work certificate issued by one JE (T), Madhupur for the period February 1985 to September 1993, she filed an O.A. No. 335/1999 praying therein to grant her the status of Temporary Status Mazdoor. Thereafter, interim order was passed on 22.06.1999 in the said O.A allowing her to continue on the post she was working since 1985 (Annexure-3). She was engaged on 13.08.1999 in compliance of the order. Later on, vide letter dated 25.01.2001 issued during the pendency of O.A. No. 335/1999, she was confirmed on the status of TSM. However, perusal of the said letter would show that no Memo number was given thereto, nor was the letter circulated. O.A. No. 335/1999 was disposed of on 15.04.2002 along with analogous cases with a direction to the General Manager, Telecom, Darbhanga Division to consider the case of the individual applicants with regard to their claim for rendering services as Daily Rated Mazdoors and if they fall within the ambit of the cases disposed of such as O.A. No. 599/1996, then to pass necessary orders in that regard within four months (Annexure-6). Thereafter, the work certificate of the Respondent was sent for verification by the BSNL to the concerned JE (T) who reported through letter dated 03.12.2003 that the documents bears his false signature (Annexure-9). On query made by the Accounts Officer as to whether Respondent has been paid salary for the period February 1985 to July 1997, as claimed, or not, it was reported that on verification of the record, no payment has been found to have been made to her during the whole period (Annexure-10 series). On verification of the gradation list dated 23.10.1992, it was found that in the original / genuine gradation list, there happens to be only khand 'ka' and khand 'kha' totalling in three pages where total 60 labourers were listed in page 01 and 02 while in another list, 32 labours were mentioned; there is no khand 'Ga' in the original list wherein Respondent / Applicant claims her to be at serial no. 42. Thereafter, a notice was issued to the Respondent on 31.01.2004 by the TDM, Dumka as to why a suitable action should not be taken against her for submitting forged work certificate and forged gradation list. However, the Respondent could not submit satisfactory reply, vigilance inquiry was entrusted to the Chairman, DE (Phone), 5 Deoghar where she was asked to appear on 18.11.2005. However, Respondent managed to suppress the file of inquiry and it was never brought to the notice of the subsequent officer who joined on transfer. Meanwhile, she continued to work. Suppressing this fact, she appeared in the examination for promotion to the post of Telecom Mechanic held on 11.08.2012 against 50% internal quota where she was declared successful and her name appeared at serial no. 1 in the result dated 20.12.2013. Letter of communication clearly stipulated that the same would not be given effect to by the Regional Establishment vis-à-vis one or the other candidate against whom any vigilance / disciplinary case is pending or contemplated. However, final results published on 14.03.2014 did not reflect the name of the applicant due to pending inquiry. Thereafter, applicant filed O.A. No. 265/2014 for a direction upon the Respondents to grant her promotion as Telecom Mechanic. Interim order was passed therein to allow her to join the training programme. However, result was kept in sealed cover vide order dated 07.04.2014. The said O.A was transferred to the Circuit Bench, Ranchi and the same was renumbered as O.A No. 112/2014/, impugned herein. Finally, by the impugned order dated 14.09.2017, O.A. was allowed taking note of the order passed in O.A. No. 71/2014 directing the BSNL to grant promotion to the Respondent on the post of Telecom Mechanic.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that a revise Inquiry Committee has been constituted to inquire into the matter of appointment of the Respondent and submit a report. The Committee submitted its report on 31.01.2018 holding that the work certificate issued for the period February 1985 to July 1997 seems to be fake (Annexure-18). Show-cause notice was issued upon the Respondent based on the Inquiry Report dated 13.02.2020 (Annexure-
22). Respondent submitted her reply on 24.03.2020 (Annexure-G to the counter affidavit). After considering the reply to the show-cause filed by the Respondent, the competent authority found that her claim of working as Daily Rated Mazdoor since 1985, gradation list and work certificate submitted by her were found to be forged. Accordingly, a decision was taken to terminate her engagement. Pursuant to the said decision, office order dated 02.12.2020 was issued. It is submitted that the Respondent has denied in her counter affidavit that the gradation list dated 23.10.1992 and work certificate of JE (T) are forged. She claims to have been working by virtue of the interim order dated 22.06.1999 passed in O.A No. 335/1999. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the learned Tribunal vide order dated 24.03.2015 passed in O.A. No. 71/2014 has made observation regarding inquiry to be conducted by the BSNL in respect of 6 her claim of rendering service as Daily Rated Mazdoor, though it has gone on to direct the BSNL to grant her promotion to the post of Telecom Mechanic in the light of the direction issued in the case of Mohan Choudhary and Abhay Shankar Jha. It is submitted that the learned Tribunal while passing order, also extended liberty to the BSNL to conclude the investigation / inquiry against the applicant and others and pass consequential orders, as per law and regulation. Since the inquiry has found a prima facie case of forgery against the applicant and that FIR has also been instituted, as a result of which, she has been terminated from her engagement, applicant cannot be promoted to the post of Telecom Mechanic on the basis of the said forgery committed by her. Applicant has not challenged the said order of termination dated 02.12.2020 before any court of law. Once there is an order of termination on record, direction by the learned CAT to promote the applicant to the post of Telecom Mechanic, cannot be given effect to now. Therefore, the impugned direction have to be necessarily set aside. Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon certain decisions of the Apex Court passed in the case of A.V. Papayya Sastry and others versus Govt. of A.P and others [(2007) 4 SCC 221], Devendra Kumar versus State of Uttaranchal and others [(2013) 9 SCC 363] and Jyothir R. versus Sunisha N.S and others [(2019) 9 SCC 449] in support of his submission that when the order of termination have been passed on account of fraud, misrepresentation and suppression of information and applicant / employee has been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation in obtaining appointment, service of the appointee is liable to be terminated. The doctrine Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation) is applicable to the case at hand. Further, it has been observed that once foundation is removed, the entire superstructure falls in view of maxim sublato fundamento cadit opus. The Apex Court in the case of Devendra Kumar (Supra) has also relied upon the maxim Jus ex injuria non oritu (a person claiming any right arising out of his own wrongdoing cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation). Therefore, the relief granted to the applicant by the learned CAT cannot be sustained in the eye of law on the face of fraud committed by her.
8. Learned senior counsel for the Respondent / applicant has submitted that the applicant had approached the learned Tribunal in O.A. No. 335/1999 for grant of Temporary status of Mazdoor. She claims to be in Daily Rated Mazdoor since 1985. By virtue of the interim order dated 22.06.1999, Respondent was 7 continued as DRM on the same terms and conditions vide order dated 13.08.1999. Temporary Status was conferred upon the applicant with effect from 01.10.2000 in terms of the order dated 25.01.2001 issued by the department. O.A. No. 335/1999 was disposed of on 15.04.2002 along with other analogous application with a direction to the General Manager, Telecom, Darbhanga to verify the case of the individual applicants regarding their claim of rendering services as Daily Rated Mazdoor and to pass necessary orders in that regard within the stipulated period if they fall within the ambit of earlier orders passed in another O.A. The applicant has also referred to the order dated 08.09.2003 passed in R.A. No. 49/2002 to comply with the direction passed in O.A. No. 335/1999 vide order dated 15.04.2002. Applicant was ordered to be present with the relevant papers for verification and authenticity of the work certificate. Therefore, no payments were made during the period February 1985 to July 1997. In the gradation list dated 23.10.1992, name of the applicant has been missing. The applicant states that notice was issued upon her by the then Telecom District Manager as to why suitable action be not taken against her. The applicant has referred to the vigilance inquiry constituted on 03.11.2005. In the provisional result of LDCE published on 20.12.2013 she was placed at serial no.
1. However, in the final result published on 14.03.2013, her name was missing. She has also referred to the interim order dated 07.04.2014 passed in the O.A No. 265/2014 where the Respondent BSNL was directed to allow her to join the training and keep the result of training in sealed cover. Thereafter, O.A. No. 112/2014 was disposed of on 14.09.2017.
9. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel for the applicant that during pendency of this writ petition, after passing of the order by the learned CAT, subsequent action have been taken in relation to the allegation for conspiracy / collusion by unknown persons and not by this Respondent. She has also referred to the vigilance investigation report dated 04.12.2019 and the lodging of the FIR against seven TSM/Officials. Learned senior counsel for the applicant submits that the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 is legal, proper and valid in the eye of law after considering the case of both the parties. It should be implemented in the right spirit. BSNL cannot justify their action by subsequent action taken after filing of this writ petition. Legality of the impugned order has to be decided on the basis of the records available before the learned CAT. In support of her submission, she has relied upon the decision rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill and another versus The Chief Election Commissioner, New Delhi and others [AIR 1978 SC 851: (1978) SCC 1 405, para-8]. It is pointed out that 8 by the subsequent order dated 11.02.2020, applicant was reverted back as DRM/Daily Rated Mazdoor from her Temporary Status after 21 years of the interim order. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has also relied upon a decision in the case of Nirmala J. Jhala versus State of Gujarat and another [(2013) 4 SCC 301, para-48] and submits that the charge of fraud cannot be proved by a vigilance inquiry. She submits that no departmental proceeding has either been initiated to establish the charge of fraud against her. Learned counsel for the applicant has also placed reliance upon the judgment in the case of Harbanslal Sahnia and another versus Indian Oil Corpn. Ltd. and others [(2003) 2 SCC 107, para-7] in support of her submission that the rule of exclusion of writ jurisdiction by availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and not one of compulsion. This court can exercise its writ jurisdiction in the present matter in spite of availability of alternative remedy since the order of termination has been passed during pendency of the present writ application. Learned senior counsel for the applicant has also submitted that no handwriting expert has proved the allegation of forgery or fraud against her. Termination of the applicant without any regular departmental proceeding amounts to double jeopardy. Similar situated six other TSM against whom FIR has been lodged including this Respondent are on bail. BSNL is still continuing their services on the promotional post without any disturbance, but the applicant has been arbitrarily discriminated by terminating her services after her reversion to the post of Daily Rated Mazdoor. Applicant has also alleged that wages for certain period and increments have not been paid to her, though she has performed her regular duties for the period in question. Petitioner BSNL may be directed to pay all legally admissible dues including increment and salary for the leave period. Learned senior counsel while summarizing her argument, has submitted that the instant writ application deserves to be dismissed. However, it is submitted that if the court is not inclined to enter into the legality of the termination order passed during pendency of the present writ petition, applicant may be allowed liberty to assail it before the appropriate forum / Tribunal / Court of law.
10. We have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and taken note of the materials placed from the record. We have also gone through the impugned order passed by the learned CAT. As per the narration of facts and events, petitioner BSNL was under the direction of the learned CAT passed in O.A. No. 335/1999 and other analogous Original Application in the case of this applicant and other similarly situated persons to conduct an inquiry regarding verification as to their claim for rendering services as Daily Rated 9 Mazdoor. Learned Tribunal has also observed that if they fall within the ambit of the order passed in O.A. No. 599/1996, necessary orders in that regard should also be passed within a period of four weeks. It appears that though show-cause notice was issued upon the applicant on 31.01.2004, but it did not reach to a logical conclusion. Vigilance inquiry in the matter was entrusted to the Chairman, DE (Phone) on 03.11.2005 where she was asked to appear on 18.11.2005. However, the applicant continued in the Temporary Status as TSM pursuant to the interim arrangement made by order dated 13.08.1999 passed in pursuance of the interim order dated 22.06.1999 in O.A. No. 335/1999. It appears that the Original Application No. 335/1999 was disposed of with a direction to the Respondent to make an inquiry / verification on the claim of the applicant and other similarly situated persons of rendering services as Daily Rated Mazdoor for the purposes of deciding their claim for regularization. Meanwhile, the applicant appeared in the Limited Departmental Competitive Examination for promotion to the post of Telecom Mechanic held on 11.08.2013 and was provisionally declared successful, as per the results published on 20.12.2013. However, the provisional results were conditional and were not given effect to by the Regional Establishment in respect of those candidates against whom any vigilance/ departmental inquiry was pending or contemplated. Final results dated 14.03.2014 did not reflect the name of the applicant due to pendency of inquiry regarding her entry as Daily Rated Mazdoor. Thereafter, some of the other aggrieved candidates whose names had appeared in the provisional list dated 20.12.2013, approached the learned CAT in O.A. No. 71/2014 in which learned Tribunal issued direction upon the BSNL to grant them promotion. However, learned Tribunal also passed following order at para-6 of the said O.A which has been quoted in the impugned order dated 14.09.2017 as well, extracted hereunder:
"6. In view of the above, this Tribunal holds that the actions of the respondents appear to be clearly arbitrary and without any substantive legal basis. That, there are severe issues of credibility about their submissions in the context of their self-evident laxity in taking any effective and expeditious step over more than a decade to conclude investigation permitted to them by this Tribunal in its order in OA 144 of 1999. On the other hand, they have not only lived with consequences of the orders at Annexure A/2 series and A/3 which they now seem to challenge through their written statement. That being the case, this Tribunal finds no substantive grounds to lend credence to the plea or arguments of the respondents. In the result, the reliefs prayed for, vide para 8 of this OA, are allowed and the respondents are directed to take appropriate consequential action within a period of three months from the date of communication of this order. This apart, this 10 Tribunal refrains from making any further comments on the sorry state of investigative efforts undertaken by the respondents. If, however, the respondents choose to continue with these efforts and reach a conclusion, if ever, they will be at liberty to take such consequential action as may be justifiable within applicable rules/guidelines. At this stage and till they do so, they cannot hold the future of the applicants to ransom indefinitely. Consequently, this O.A succeeds and stands disposed in terms of the above, with no order as to costs."
10. Learned Tribunal however, proceeded to direct the BSNL to promote the applicant on the post of Telecom Mechanic forthwith drawing parity with the case of Mohan Choudhary and Abhay Shankar Mishra and also imposed cost of Rs. 10,000/-. A perusal of the observation made at paragraph-6, quoted above, shows that the learned Tribunal had permitted the BSNL to pass consequential orders, as per law and regulation pursuant to the inquiry / investigation conducted by them as regards the claim of regularization in service made by the applicant and other persons. Learned Tribunal though refrained from making comments on sorry state of investigative efforts undertaken by the Respondent BSNL, but it observed that if the Respondents choose to continue with these efforts and reach a conclusion, if ever, they will be at liberty to take such consequential action as may be justifiable within the applicable rules / guidelines. However, Tribunal was of the view that at this stage and till they do so, they cannot hold the future of the applicants to ransom indefinitely. Inquiry made against the applicant prima facie found her indulging in fraud by relying upon fabricated and forged documents to support her claim of having worked as Daily Rated Mazdoor under the BSNL. The applicant was served with the show-cause notice on 13.02.2020 pursuant to the said Inquiry Report dated 31.01.2018 which found that the work certificate submitted by the applicant for the period February 1985 to July 1997 appeared to be fake. Applicant submitted her reply on 24.03.2020. However, her reply was not found to be satisfactory. The competent authority was of the opinion that the claim of having worked as DRM since 1985, gradation list and work certificate submitted by her were forged. Accordingly, a decision was taken to terminate her. Thereafter, order of termination dated 02.12.2020 has been passed. Prior to that, applicant had also been reverted to the post of Daily Rated Mazdoor from the Temporary Status of TSM vide order dated 11.02.2020. FIR was also directed to be lodged against seven such employees including the applicant. Order of termination dated 02.12.2020 has not been assailed by the applicant in any proceeding. If the order of termination passed against her stands as on date, the 11 direction to promote the applicant to the post of Telecom Mechanic cannot be given effect to. Even the learned Tribunal had clearly observed that if the inquiry proceedings led to the investigative efforts and reach a conclusion, BSNL would be at liberty to take consequential action, as may be justifiable, within the applicable rules / guidelines. Direction to promote the applicant to the post of Telecom Mechanic had therefore been passed with the aforesaid rider. Since the applicant has been terminated on the ground of indulging in fraud and forgery regarding her claim of having worked as Daily Rated Mazdoor for the period February 1985 to July 1997 which is the basis for her regularization in service, no promotional benefit as ordered by the learned Tribunal could be granted to her. The applicant is not legally entitled to get promotional benefit as directed by the learned Tribunal in the aforesaid facts and circumstances.
11. This Court, therefore, is of the view that the direction of the learned Tribunal to grant promotion to the applicant on the post of Telecom Mechanic, cannot be given effect to in the aforesaid facts and circumstances. We however, refrain from observing anything on the merits of the order of termination dated 02.12.2020 passed against the applicant / Respondent in the instant writ petition. Respondent is at liberty to raise her grievance in respect of her termination order and reversion order in any appropriate proceeding, in accordance with law. However, the impugned order of the learned Tribunal dated 14.09.2017 passed in O.A/051/00112/2014, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, is not sustainable in law and on facts. It is accordingly set aside. Writ petition is allowed.
Let it be made clear that no observation made hereinabove regarding her termination would prejudice the case of the Respondent in any such proceeding where her termination is challenged.
(Aparesh Kumar Singh, J) (Deepak Roshan, J) Ranjeet/