Central Administrative Tribunal - Cuttack
Debabrata Pradhan vs D/O Post on 15 February, 2021
1 OA 374/2020
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CUTTACK BENCH
No. OA 374 of 2020
Present: Hon'ble Mr. Swarup Kumar Mishra, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. C.V.Sankar, Member (A)
Debabrata Pradhan, aged about 30 years, S/o Bidhyadhara
Pradhan, At-Gudibharda, PO-Kaliaguda, Via-Gobara, PS-
Gangapur, Dist-Ganjam, Pin-761124, working as Gramin Dak
Sevak, Kaliguda Branch Post Office.
......Applicant
VERSUS
1. Union of India represented through Chief Post Master General,
Odisha Circle, Bhubaneswar-751001, Dist-Khurda.
2. Superintendent of Post Offices, Aska Division, Aska, Dist-
Ganjam-761100.
3. Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhanjanagar Sub Division,
Bhanjanagar, At/PO-Bhanjanagar, Dist-Ganjam-761126.
4. Post Master, Bhanjanagar Head Office, At/Po-Bhanjanagar,
Dist.-Ganjam-761126.
5. Jharkhand State Open School, represented through Academic
Officer Shiksha Bhawan, Behind Tagore Hill, Morabadi, Ranchi,
Jharkhand-834008.
......Respondents.
For the applicant : Ms.D.Mohapatra, counsel
For the respondents: Mr.G.R.Verma, counel
Heard & reserved on : 27.1.2021 Order on : 15.02.2021
O R D E R
Per Mr.Swarup Kumar Mishra, J.M. The applicant has filed the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals' Act, 1985 seeking following reliefs :
"(i) To quash the order of termination under Annexure-4 and accordingly direct the respondents to allow the applicant to continue in his post with all consequential service benefits.
And/or to pass such other order/s, direction/s as this Hon'ble Court deemed just, equitable and proper in the interest of the applicant."
2. The facts of the case in a nutshell are that the applicant was selected and engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak under Kaliguda Branch Post Office on 19.9.2019 and he joined on 23.9.2019. Vide letter dated 2.7.2020 (Annexure-4) he was terminated from the service without any notice. The applicant made an application under RTI Act on 14.7.2020 before respondent No.2 praying for 2 OA 374/2020 supply of information regarding the allegations made against him. Respondent No.2 replied that the document issued by the Jharkhand State Open School submitted by the applicant was found to be not genuine. Another information was supplied to the applicant in which a complaint was made by one N.K.Bishoyee to the Collector alleging therein that the High School certificate submitted by the applicant was forged. On 19.8.2020 the applicant made an application under RTI Act to the Collector, Gangam to supply the copy of the petition filed by N.K.Bishoyee. Pursuant to the application of the applicant, Jharkhand State Open School replied that the certificate issued in favour of the applicant was correct and the applicant has successfully completed High School examination conducted by the Jharkhand State Open School, Ranchi. In the meantime the respondents have issued fresh notification to fill up the post of Gramin Dak Sevak, including the post hold by the applicant. Hence the present OA has been filed by the applicant.
3. The respondents have filed their Counter stating that the applicant has applied for the post of Gramin Dak Sevak pursuant to the notification dated 10.3.2019 though he has not passed the Secondary School Examination of 10th standard with mathematics and English (having been studied as compulsory or elective subject) conducted by any recognized Board of School Education by Govt. of India/State Government/Union Territories of India, which is a mandatory educational qualification for all approved categories of Gramin Dak Sevak (Annexure R/10). It is also submitted that the applicant was selected and engaged provisionally as GDS BPM Kaliaguda BO in account with Gobara SO on taking declaration from him that in case any document submitted by him is found fake/false during the entire engagement period, the matter may be reported to Police and he will be liable for termination forthwith from engagement under Rule 8 of GDS (Engagement & Conduct) Rules, 2011. It is further submitted that as per the enquiry report of office of the CPMG, Bhubaneswar, vide letter dated 24.6.2020 (Annexure R/5), the document submitted by the applicant issued by Jharkhand State Open School for recruitment to the post of GDSBPM, Kaliaguda BO is found to be not genuine 3 OA 374/2020 and the applicant was ordered for termination of engagement as per Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Revised Rules, 2020 as certificate submitted by the applicant was found to be not genuine. The extract of Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Revised Rules, 2020 is as under :
8. Termination of Engagement-
(1) The engagement of a Sevak who has not already rendered more than three years' continuous engagement from the date of his/her engagement shall be liable to be terminated at any time by a notice in writing given either by the Sevak to the Engaging Authority, or by the Engaging Authority or any Authority to which the Engaging Authority is subordinate or any other Authority empowered in that behalf by the Government, by general or special order, to the Scvaki (2) The period of such notice shall be one month.
Provided that the engagement 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/she was drawing them immediately before the termination of his/her engagement, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month NOTE. 1 : 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 the Sevak in lieu of notice of one month through money order NOTE -2 : When engagement of a GDS is terminated under this RuIe, he/she shall not be eligible for GDS Gratuity and Severance amount etc." The respondents have therefore submitted that the applicant is not entitled for any relief sought for in the OA and have prayed for dismissal of the present OA.
4. We have heard both the learned counsels and have gone through the pleadings on record.
5. The applicant who was working as GDS w.e.f. 23.9.2019 as per the appointment letter vide Annexure-3. He has been disengaged on 2.7.2020 as per Rule 8(1)(i) of GDS (Conduct) Rules by issuing notice to him. Learned counsel for the respondents in support of the disengagement has stated that the same is in accordance with the GDS Rules, since the applicant had completed less than 3 years of service in the department. It has been further submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the applicant has submitted fake educational certificate and therefore he has been disengaged. The order of termination dated 2.7.2020 vide Annexure-4 does not show the ground for which he was disengaged. In the Counter it is averred by the respondents that due to submission of fake educational certificate by the applicant, such action has been taken by the respondents. Admittedly no show 4 OA 374/2020 cause notice has been sent to the applicant, to give him opportunity to make his stand clear with regard to the alleged fake educational certificate said to have been submitted by him, for the purpose of getting the job in question in the department. It is submitted by learned counsel for the applicant that in absence of any show cause notice, action of the respondents in disengaging the applicant is illegal.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that there is no such provision of issuing of show cause notice as per Rule 8(1)(i) of the said rule. He also submitted that at the time of joining he has given an undertaking and therefore steps taken by the respondents and procedure adopted by them is neither illegal nor irregular. Learned counsel for the respondents had also submitted that the applicant has neither filed any appeal nor any representation before the higher authorities of the department against his termination order.
7. It is seen that this is not a termination simplicitor. Although in the first appearance it would appear that the disengagement notice vide Annexure-4 virtually amounts to termination simplicitor, but once the veil is lifted and this Tribunal goes through the averments, it is clear that there is allegation by the respondents against the applicant that he has submitted fake educational certificate and that is why the respondents have taken the step for disengagement of the applicant. Once the said ground averred in the Counter is considered, then it will attach a stigma on the applicant and therefore the non- mentioning of any ground in the Annexure-4 cannot be accepted as termination simplicitor. Once stigma is attached to the applicant he is entitled to minimum right of being heard to make his stand clear. The basic principle of audi alterem partem has not been followed by the respondents in issuing disengagement notice and this Tribunal finds the same to be illegal. It is immaterial that no such provision for issuing show cause notice is there in the rule in question, unless there is specific provision in the statute excluding the scope of right of hearing and adhering to the principle of audi alterem partem. 5 OA 374/2020 Accordingly the said principle having not been followed by the respondents, it is found to be in violation of principle of natural justice.
8. Accordingly disengagement notice vide Annexure-4 is quashed. Respondents department, if they are so advised may proceed in accordance with law with the matter, so far as the fake certificate of the applicant is concerned.
9. The OA is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
(C.V.SANKAR) (SWARUP KUMAR MISHRA) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) I.Nath