Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Praveen Kumar vs M/O Communications on 30 August, 2016
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi.
OA-2910/2015
Reserved on : 11.08.2016.
Pronounced on : 30.08.2016.
Hon'ble Mr. V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A)
1. Praveen Kumar, BPM
25 years,
S/o Sh. Dori Lal,
R/o 5/49 A Prince Nagar Colony,
Melrose Bye Past, Aligarh, UP.
2. Sonu Kumar, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Gajraj Singh,
R/o Village & Post Gharbara,
Tehsil Khair, Via Tappal,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
3. Harmesh Choudhary, BPM
19 years,
S/o Sh. Yashpal,
R/o Village & Post Simrauthi,
Distt. Aligarh, UP-202165.
4. Vishnu Kumar, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Nem Singh,
R/o Village Kundanpur & Post Kapasiya,
Tehsil & Thana Sikandra Rao,
Distt. Hathras.
5. Prem, BPM
21 years,
S/o Sh. Bal Kishan,
R/o Village & Post Mehrawal,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
6. Fazal Khan, BPM
20 years,
2 OA-2910/2015
S/o Sh. Shafi Mohammad,
R/o Village & Poswt Mau Chirayat,
Distt. Hathras, UP.
7. Rajeev Singh, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Sovran Singh,
R/o Gali No.1, Mandir Wali Gali,
Quarsi, Aligarh, UP.
8. Somveer, BPM
25 years S/o Sh. Chokhe Lal,
R/o Village & Post Devi Ka Nagla,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
9. Ajeet Kumar, BPM
27 years,
S/o Sh. Niranjan Lal Sharma,
R/o Village Kasimpur Nagri,
Post Panehra, Tehsil Atrauli,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
10. Amaresh Dixit, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Suresh Chand,
R/o Village Isholi & Post Iradat Nagar,
Tehsil Fatehabad, Distt. Agra, UP.
11. Vinod Kumar, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Mahendra Singh,
R/o Village Tasiya & Post Sonkh,
Distt. Mathura, UP.
12. Brajesh Kumar, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh.
R/o Village Chanpur, Post Kasimpur
Power House,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
13. Mukesh Bhardwaj, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Saroj Bhardwaj,
R/o Village & Post Barla,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
3 OA-2910/2015
14. Sanjay Kumar, BPM
21 years,
S/o Sh. Triloki Singh,
R/o Village & Post Barla,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
15. Sone Lal, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Shyam Veer Singh,
R/o Village & Post Barla,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
16. Jaydeep Pratap Singh, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh. Om Pal Singh,
R/o Village & Post Akrabad,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
17. Manoj Kumar, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Ranveer Singh,
R/o Village Nagla Gumani,
Post Rkhala,
Thana Chhara, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
18. Sachin, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Vikram Singh,
R/o Village Nagla Banzaran,
Post Badari Buzurg,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
19. Pushpendra Kumar, BPM
25 years,
S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh,
R/o Village Yusufpur (Nagla Dhani),
Post Bhagipur, Distt. Etah, UP.
20. Ravendra Kumar, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Gajraj Singh,
R/o Village Kasimpur, Post
Ramnagar (Dadon),
Tehsil Atrauli, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
4 OA-2910/2015
21. Km. Pratigya, BPM
22 years,
D/o Sh. Shalav Kumar,
R/o Village & Post Ramangar,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
22. Km. Saroj, BPM
24 years,
D/o Sh. Veeri Singh,
R/o Village & Post Sanjay Nagar,
Sankra Rao Chhara,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
23. Pushpendra Kumar Singh, BPM
25 years,
S/o Sh. Devi Singh,
R/o Village & Post Shekhpur,
Block Dhanipur,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
24. Raj Bahadur, BPM
27 years,
S/o Sh. Siyaram,
R/o Village Gwarau Khurd & Post
Gwarau Khan,
Distt. Hathras, UP.
25. Mohan Gaur, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Dutt Gaur,
R/o Village Sunana, Post
Sikanderpur, Kota,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
26. Nitin Kumar, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Jay Prakash,
R/o Village Hewatpur Kotra,
Post Dadon, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
27. Mohd. Kasim, BPM
21 years,
S/o Sh. Fayyaz Ali,
R/o H.No. 292/337, Gali No. 03,
Begpur, Civil Line, Aligarh, UP.
5 OA-2910/2015
28. Prashant Kumar, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Bhullan Singh,
R/o Village Sihani Faridpur,
Post Alampur, Fatehpur,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
29. Arun Kumar, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Suraj Pal Singh,
R/o Village Aundha Khera, Post Ramnagar,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
30. Mustafa Ali, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Abad Khan,
R/o Village & Post Sunpahar,
Chharra, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
31. Mohd. Asif Khan, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Mohd. Savir Khan,
R/o Village & Post Bai Kalan,
Chharra, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
32. Lalu Prasad, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Devendra Singh,
R/o Village Badepura, Post
Bijauli, Tehsil Atrauli,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
33. Pawan Kumar, BPM
19 years,
S/o Sh. Hem Singh,
R/o Village & Post Harnot Bhojpur,
Via Dadon, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
34. Man Raj Yadav, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Rajpal Singh,
R/o Village & Post Dadon,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
35. Pramod Kumar, BPM
22 years,
6 OA-2910/2015
S/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o Village Ganeshpur,
Post Sahanpura,
Tehsil Khair, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
36. Veeresh Kumar, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Pratap Singh,
R/o Village & Post Mahavar,
Thana Dolana, Distt. Kasganj,
UP-207124.
37. Mohd. Sharik, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh. Abdul Qayum,
R/o Village & Post Dadon,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
38. Gaurav Kumar Sharma, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Sharma,
R/o Village & Post Sunamai,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
39. Km. Roshani, BPM
23 years,
D/o Sh. Dharm Pal Singh,
R/o Village & Post Godha,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
40. Nitesh Sharma, BPM
25 years,
S/o Sh. Dev Dutt Sharma,
R/o Village & Post Nagla Bijauli,
Tehsil Atrauli, Thana Palimukimpur,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
41. Brajesh Kumar, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh. Raghuraj Singh,
R/o Village Aundhakhera,
Post Ramnagar,
Thana Dadon, Tehsil Atrauli,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
42. Jugal Kishor, BPM
7 OA-2910/2015
23 years,
S/o Sh. Bhagwari,
R/o Village & Post Chherat,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
43. Deepak Raj, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Niranjan Singh,
R/o Village & Post Digsari,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
44. Ajay Pratap Sikarwar, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh. Vijay Shankar,
R/o Bahrampur, Etmadpur,
Distt. Agra, UP.
45. Anshul Kumar, BPM
19 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Das Singh,
R/o Village Supeti, Post Mirhachi,
Distt. Etah, UP.
46. Bhanu Pratap, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Vijay Singh Chandel,
R/o H.No. 2/1334, Gali No. 01,
Rambad Colony,
Ramghat Road, Aligarh, UP.
47. Dushyant Singh, BPM
21 years,
S/o Sh. Yatendra Pal Singh,
R/o Village Chandanpur,
Post Thulai, Tehsil Sasni,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
48. Amit Pathak, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Satyavir Sharma,
R/o Village & Post Pata Khas, Mursan,
Distt. Hathras, UP.
49. Guddu Khan, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Vunde Ali,
8 OA-2910/2015
R/o Village Ismailpur,
Post Gangiri,
Tehsil Atrauli, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
50. Om Prakash Singh, BPM
24 years,
S/o Sh. Dharm Pal Singh,
R/o Village & Post Shahpur Madrak,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
51. Atul Kumar, BPM
21 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Prakash,
R/o Village Nagla Baram,
Post Baral, Thana Pilua,
Distt. Etah, UP.
52. Jay Gopal, BPM
19 years,
S/o Sh. Jaypal Singh,
R/o Village & Post Bhanoli,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
53. Salman Khan, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Allahmahar Khan,
R/o Village Hirnoti, Post Digsari,
Thana Gonda, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
54. Raniku Kumar, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Shesshpal,
R/o Village Mau, Post Bankner Khair,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
55. Jasvir Singh, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Virpal Singh,
R/o Village Nagar, Post Nawabpur,
Thana Dadon, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
56. Pooran Chand Pathak, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Gangadhar Sharma,
R/o 5 Village & Post Bhanoli,
Tehsil Khair, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
9 OA-2910/2015
57. Narendra Kumar, BPM
23 years,
S/o Sh. Ramvir Singh,
R/o Village & Post Olenda, Fatehpur
Sikri, Kirawali, Distt. Agra, UP.
58. Km. Suchitra Jauhari, BPM
24 years,
D/o Sh. Mihilal Jauhari,
R/o Pilkhana House,
Sarai Labaria,
Aligarh, UP.
59. Smt. Sanbhari Devi, BPM
23 years,
W/o Sh. Subhash Chandra,
R/o Village & Post Lahra, Via Dadon,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
60. Chandra Veer Singh, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Ramphal Singh,
R/o Village Fazalpur, Post Izzatpur,
Tehsil Atrauli, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
61. Bhupendra Kumar, BPM
22 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Niwash Tomar,
R/o Village & Post Sujanpur Via
Dayal Nagar, Distt. Aligarh, UP.
62. Manu Bhardwaj, BPM
19 years,
S/o Sh. Girraj Kishor,
R/o Village & Post Kasison, Thana Khair,
Dist. Aligarh, UP.
63. Kailash Sharma, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Iswari Sharma,
R/o Village Balanpur, Post Prempur,
Block Tappal, Tehsil Khair,
Distt. Aligarh, UP.
64. Hemant Singh, BPM
10 OA-2910/2015
23 years,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh,
R/o Village & Post Northa Isepur,
Via Kachaura, Distt. Hathras, UP.
65. Chotte Lal, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Jagdish Singh,
R/o Village & Post Northa Isepur,
Via Kachaura, Distt. Hathras, UP.
66. Himmat Singh, BPM
20 years,
S/o Sh. Ram Nath Singh,
R/o Village Hirapur & Post
Khojpur, Block Sahawar,
Distt. Kasganj, UP. ..... Applicants
(through Sh. M.K. Bhardwaj and Sh. Hilal Haider, Advocates)
Versus
UOI & Ors. through:
1. The Secretary,
Ministry of Communication,
Dak Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. The Post Master General,
Lucknow Zone,
Lucknow, UP.
3. Sr. Superintendent of Posts,
Aligarh Division, Aligarh.
4. Vinod Kumar Gupta,
Sr. Superintendent of Post,
Aligarh Division, Aligarh. ..... Respondents
(through Sh. Subhash Gosain, Advocate)
11 OA-2910/2015
ORDER
Mr. Shekhar Agarwal, Member (A) The respondents issued an advertisement on 05.03.2014 inviting applications for filling up vacancies of GDS BPM under the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aligarh. The applicants applied for the same and were finally appointed during the period between December, 2014 and February, 2015. According to the applicants one Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, who was holding the charge of the Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aligarh for only 03 days and who wanted to appoint his own persons acted in a most arbitrary and illegal manner and terminated the services of all of them vide separate orders issued on 24.06.2015. The applicants have now approached this Tribunal seeking the following relief:-
"(a) to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 24.06.2015 (A-1 (Colly) and direct the respondents to allow the applicants to continue the services of applicants till attaining the age of superannuation.
(b) to declare the action of respondents in terminating the services of applicants as illegal and grant all consequential benefits.
(c) to allow the OA with cost.
(d) Pass such other and/or further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
2. The contention of the applicants is that the action of the respondents was in violation of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as services of the applicants have been terminated 12 OA-2910/2015 whereas some other identically placed persons appointed in the same manner have been continued. Those continued are both seniors as well as juniors of the applicants. Moreover, the termination orders have been issued by Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, who was not a regular Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Aligarh when he passed the impugned orders. The impugned orders were also in violation of the principles of natural justice as no show cause notice has been given to the applicants before termination of their services. Applicants have further stated that all of them had joined service between December, 2014 and February, 2015 and had been working satisfactorily. No warning regarding their conduct was ever issued to them. The applicants have not been paid TRCA + DA also in lieu of the notice. Thus, the impugned orders get vitiated on this account as well. The applicants were humiliated as they were forced to hand over charge under the pressure of local police. The action of the respondents was illegal, arbitrary and unjustified. The terminations orders were vague even though the applicants had been appointed in accordance with the rules.
3. In their reply, the respondents have submitted that for smooth and proper functioning of postal services, it was felt necessary to fill the vacant posts of GDS Branch Post Masters in rural areas of Aligarh. The Post Master General Agra Region gave his approval for the same vide letter dated 20.01.2013. Thereafter, the Senior 13 OA-2910/2015 Superintendent of Post Offices, Aligarh Division started the engagement process by issue of a Notification dated 05.03.2014 inviting applications for the aforesaid posts. After receipt of these applications Sh. Govind Singh the then Sr. Supdt. Of Post Offices, Aligarh Division started the engagement process and appointed the applicants against the vacant posts during 30.06.2014 to 31.12.2014 after which his powers for engaging GDS were seized 06 months prior to his superannuation.
3.1 Soon after Sh. Govind Singh had completed the process of engaging the 71 GDS BPMs, a complaint dated 25.01.2015 was received from Ex Member of Parliament Sh. Vijendra Singh regarding irregularities committed in these appointments. The Chief Post Master General U.P. Circle then directed vide his letter dated 26.03.2015 that all these appointments be reviewed. Accordingly, the Post Master General Agra Division reviewed these appointments and found that many serious irregularities, as mentioned below, had been committed:-
(i) The Notification issued inviting applications for this post was in contravention of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. Thus, while the prescribed maximum age limit was 60 years in the Notification issued on 24.09.2014 by SSPO Aligarh, this was mentioned as 64 years. Further, as per provision of the Rules, the 14 OA-2910/2015 crucial date for determination of age limit was closing date for receipt of applications from candidates whereas SSPO Aligarh prescribed this to be the date on which the Notification was issued.
(ii) Last date for receipt of application was extended by SSPO Aligarh, on his own, with ulterior motive.
(iii) As per Court orders on the subject in cases of engagement of GDS, a reserved panel was required to be prepared to take care of situations where the selected candidate refuses to join or resigns within one year of joining. The select panel was to be in proportion of 05 candidates for each vacancy and was to remain valid for a year. However, SSPO, Aligarh did not prepare any such panel.
(iv) In cases of 71 engagements made by the SSPO, it was found that in 55 cases meritorious candidates were ignored. The respondents have given an account of how merit was over looked in the selection process (pages 6 to 21 of their reply)
(v) There were also allegations that contrary to Instructions, the meritorious candidates were called to the office of the SSPO and asked to submit their Mobile Nos. and affidavits. A bribe amount was fixed and engagement orders were issue only in favour of those who paid the money. It was alleged that a bribe of Rs. 3 to 4 lacs per appointment was taken.
15 OA-2910/2015
(vi) The engagement file was not routed through the office Supervisor, which was against the settled position of the department.
(vii) Medical certificate of fitness of selected candidates was not obtained, which was also against the departmental instructions.
(viii) Certificate of computer knowledge was not got verified before issuing the engagement orders.
(ix) Post engagement formalities were also not completed.
(x) Sh. Govind Singh applied for leave from 17.06.2015 to 20.06.2015. Additional charge of SSPO was given to Sh. V.K. Gupta, who was a regular Group-A officer and senior to Sh. Govind Singh. Post Master General, Agra Region vide his letter dated 23.06.2015 issued directions to Sh. V.K. Gupta for cancellation of all the 71 appointments made by Sh. Govind Singh. In compliance of these instructions cancellation orders of the applicants were issued on 24.06.2015. The said orders were delivered to the applicants through special messenger.
4. We have heard both sides and perused the material placed on record. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that Rule-8 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 reads as follows:-
"Termination of Engagement 16 OA-2910/2015 (1) The engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than three years'continuous service from the date of his engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Recruiting Authority or by the Recruiting Authority to the Sevak:
(2) The period of such notice shall be one month:
Provided that the service of any such Sevak may be terminated forthwith and on such termination, the Sevak shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of Basic Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible for the period of the notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. NOTE.- Where the intended effect of such termination has to be immediate, it should be mentioned that one month's Time Related Continuity Allowance plus Dearness Allowance as admissible is being remitted to be Sevak in lieu of notice of one month through money order."
4.1 He argued that no notice was given to the applicants. Further, he relied on the judgment of the Chandigarh Bench of this Tribunal in OA-334/HP/91 dated 25.03.1992 in which it was held that cancellation of selection made without assigning any reason and without giving a reasonable opportunity to the applicant to defend himself was against the principles of natural justice and, therefore, unsustainable. Learned counsel also argued that the Post Master General by issuing directions for cancellation of the engagement orders of the applicants had usurped the powers of the appointing authority, which was impermissible under law. According to him 17 OA-2910/2015 termination orders, if necessary, should have been issued only by the SSPO, who had appointed the applicants and not on directions of any higher authority.
4.2 We have considered the aforesaid submission. A perusal of the impugned orders reveals that in all the termination orders in lieu of notice of one month basic TRCA + DA was given to the applicants.
Thus, there appears to be no violation of the Rule-8 of Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 in this regard. As far as violation of principles of natural justice by denial of show cause notice was concerned, it is seen that in this case the appointments of the applicants were terminated by the respondents on the ground of irregularities committed in the appointment process itself by the SSPO. No misconduct or fault has been attributed to the applicants. The irregularities that occurred were in the files of the respondents themselves. Under these circumstances, we are of the opinion that issue of show cause notice to the applicants would have been an empty formality and an exercise in futility. No purpose would have been served by issuing such notice as there was nothing that the applicants could have explained in response to this notice. Hence, it is a case in which issue of notice for compliance of the principles of natural justice was rightly dispensed with.
18 OA-2910/2015 4.3 Learned counsel for the applicants had also submitted that the Post Master General by giving directions for terminating the appointments had usurped the powers of the appointing authority. We are, however, not in agreement with the applicants in this regard. This was not a case of termination on account of misconduct where the termination was to be done only by the Disciplinary Authority. As is mentioned above, the appointments were reviewed on the directions of Chief Post Master General, UP Circle, who received a complaint in this regard. On finding that the complaint had some merit, Post Master General directed SSPO, who was an authority subordinate to him to cancel the appointments. In our opinion, this was purely an administrative action and we do not find any fault with the same.
4.4 Learned counsel has also alleged that Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, who was holding charge for few days, had issued the termination orders whereas these should have been issued by a regular SSPO. However, as is evident from the facts narrated above, Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta was only carrying out the directions given by Post Master General, Agra Division and not acting on his own. We, therefore, do not find any irregularity in this regard. 4.5 Lastly, we have considered whether it was necessary for the respondents to cancel all the appointments. In this regard, we take 19 OA-2910/2015 guidance from the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Inderpreet Singh Kahlon & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors., AIR 2006 SC 2571 wherein certain para meters for deciding when the selection process deserves to be cancelled have been laid down. Apex Court has ruled that when the irregularities noticed are of such nature that it would not have been possible to separate the tainted candidates from the innocent ones, the selection may be cancelled. On applying the principles laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case, we find that the irregularities committed in this case related to the issue of the notification inviting the applications for the post of GDS itself. Thus, the maximum age limit prescribed for the candidates was not in accordance with rules. The date prescribed for assigning the maximum permissible age was also not in accordance with the rules. They were engaged without verification of certificates and without verification of their computer knowledge. There is also an allegation of appointment letters been issued to those who paid the bribe money, since the applicants had been called to the office of SSPO for giving their consent for appointment, in violation of the rules.
5. In view of these irregularities, we are of the opinion that the conditions laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above quoted judgment are fully met and, therefore, the respondents cannot be faulted for cancelling the entire selection.
20 OA-2910/2015
6. In view of the above, we find that this O.A. is devoid of merit and is dismissed. No costs.
(Shekhar Agarwal) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /Vinita/