Karnataka High Court
Smt Shaira Chavade, vs The Divisional Personnel Officer, on 18 June, 2012
Bench: N.Kumar, H.S.Kempanna
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 18th DAY OF JUNE 2012
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N. KUMAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. KEMPANNA
WP No.14539/2011 (S-CAT)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SHAIRA CHAVADE,
W/O SRI BABU SAB,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,
EX. SUBSTITUTE BUNGALOW PEON,
O/o. THE SENIOR DIVISIONAL ENGINEER/C,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
MYSORE,
RESIDENT OF C/o KANTHAMMA,
NO. 2641, 4TH CROSS,
4TH MAIN, V.V. MOHALLA,
HONTIKOPPAL,
MYSORE. ...PETITIONER
( By SMT. SARITHA FOR SRI BASAVARAJ
VEERABHADRA, ADV.)
AND :
1 THE DIVISIONAL PERSONNEL OFFICER,
DIVISIONAL OFFICE, PERSONNEL BRANCH,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
MYSORE-570 021.
2
2. THE CHIEF PERSONNEL OFFICER,
HEADQUARTERS OFFICE,
PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI-580 020.
3. THE UNION OF INDIA,
MINISTRY OF RAILWAYS,
REP. BY THE GENERAL MANAGER,
SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY,
HUBLI-580 020. ...RESPONDENTS
( By SRI. V.K. NARAYANASWAMY, ADV.)
-0-0-0-0-
This writ petition is filed under Articles 226 and
227 of the Constitution of India praying to quash the
impugned order dated 30.6.2008 in O.A.No. 139/2007
(Annexure-A) and Order dated 8.9.2008 in R.A.No.
12/2008 in O.A. No. 139/2007 (Annexure-F) passed by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore Bench,
as arbitrary, discriminatory while directing the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner with service and
monetary benefits such as continuity of service, drawal
of annual increment, wages and arrears from the date of
termination (ie) 29/3/2007 till the date of
reinstatement.
This writ petition coming on for Preliminary
Hearing this day N.Kumar, J., passed the following:-
3
ORDER
This petition is filed challenging the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing the application filed by the petitioner where he had challenged his order of termination.
2. The petitioner was appointed as a Substitute Bungalow Peon by Office Order dated 2.1.2004 as per Annexure-A1. Subsequently, she was granted temporary status w.e.f. 12.5.2004 vide Office Memorandum dated 21.10.2005. On 13.3.2007 respondent No.2 issued a letter to the petitioner indicating that the competent authority has decided to terminate the petitioner from service since her services were not found satisfactory. The petitioner submitted her representation dated 20.3.2007. On consideratrion of her representation as per Annexure-A10 dated 30.3.2007 her services came to be terminated with immediate effect due to unsatisfactory performance. Therefore, she filed an application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the relief 4 of quashing the Office letters dated 13.3.2007 and 30.3.2007 and the Office Order dated 30.3.2007 at Annexures-A7 and Annexure-A10 issued by the second respondent and for consequential reliefs.
3. After service, respondents appeared and filed a detailed statement of objections and contested the claim. The Tribunal after hearing both the parties found that the petitioner was appointed as a Substitute Peon and even if she had continued in that capacity for a period of four months and had acquired the status of a temporary servant still his services could be terminated if she is found not suitable to the said post. The order of termination passed did not cast any stigma on the petitioner. Therefore, the impugned orders passed are strictly in accordance with law and therefore, quashing the same would not arise. Accordingly, the application was dismissed. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ petition is filed.
5
4. Smt. Saritha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assailing the impugned order contends that once the person who is appointed as a substitute completes four months service in terms of the order of appointment, she would be entitled to the temporary status and all other consequential benefits. Therefore, her service could not have been terminated without issuing notice and without holding an enquiry. More over, her services were terminated retrospectively which the respondents admit as a mistake and therefore, the impugned orders are liable to be set aside and the Tribunal committed a serious error in not interfering with such illegal orders.
5. Per contra, Sri. V.K. Narayana Swamy, the learned counsel appearing for the railways supports the impugned order.
6. We do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. Annexure-A1 is the order of appointment, which 6 explicitly makes it clear that the petitioner's engagement is subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein. Condition No.1 no doubt prescribes that on completion of four months' continuous service she will be granted temporary status by which she will be entitled to all rights and privileges as are admissible to temporary railway servants. Condition No.2 makes it clear that her services are liable to be terminated within three years without assigning any reason, if found unsatisfactory by the sponsoring Officer. Condition No.3 prescribes that her services will also be terminated if the Officer sponsoring does not require her services or if she is transferred or retires from service or his successor will not like her to continue as his Substitute Bungalow Peon or if there is reduction in establishment due to change in policy of the Railway.
7. In the instant case, the services of the petitioner were terminated because her service was not found satisfactory to the Sponsoring Officer, which is also permissible under law. As is clear from what is set 7 out above even if she completes four months' service as a Substitute and continues to have the temporary status in law there is no requirement that she should be given notice and an enquiry has to be conducted before her services are terminated. Condition No.2 makes it very clear that her services are liable to be terminated within three years without assigning any reason if found not satisfactory by the Sponsoring Officer. Therefore, the contention that notice ought to have been given and an enquiry ought to have been conducted is without any substance. As set out above, the Tribunal by a detailed order by referring to the various judgments of the Apex Court has held that if the order of termination gives the reason for termination as unsatisfactory it does not amount to any stigma being attached to the employee. Insofar as the contention that she cannot be terminated with retrospective effect is concerned, the authorities have agreed to pay the petitioner the emoluments to which the petitioner is entitled to from the date of so called termination till the date of termination and that 8 takes care of the interest of the petitioner but could not save termination as rightly held by the Tribunal.
8. For the aforesaid reasons, we do not see any justification to interfere with the impugned order.
9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
Sd/-
JUDGE.
*alb/-.