Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Amit vs D/O Postal on 25 July, 2023
1 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/104/2021 & Original Application
No.200/143/2021
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 25th day of July, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
1. Original Application No.200/104/2021
1. Akshay Kumar, S/o Shri Bachan Singh Meena, aged about 23 years,
Postman, Head Post Office, Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) 970661.
2. Hansram Meena, S/o Shri Magan Lal Meena, aged about 31 years,
Postman, Head Post Office, Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) 970661.
-Applicants
(By Advocate - Shri Harish Chandra Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Additional Director General (DE), Department of Posts (DE
Section), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110011.
3. The Chief Post Master General, M.P. Circle, Bhopal, District Bhopal
(M.P.) 462011.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Sagar Division Sagar, District
Sagar (M.P.) 462003.
5. The Assistant Superintendent of Post Offices, North Sub Division,
Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) - 462003.
Page 1 of 5
2 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021
6. Post Master Damoh HO Damoh, District Damoh (M.P.) - 470661.
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Surendra Pratap Singh)
2. Original Application No.200/143/2021
Amit, S/o Shri Roshan Lal, aged about 25 years, Postman, Lekkhapal Nagar
Head Post Office, Indore, District Indore (M.P.) - 452007.
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Harish Chandra Singh)
Versus
1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Communication and
Information Technology, Department of Posts, Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg,
New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Additional Director General (DE), Department of Posts (DE
Section), Dak Bhawan, Sansad Marg, New Delhi - 110011.
3. The Chief Post Master General, M.P. Circle, Bhopal, District Bhopal
(M.P.) 462011.
4. The Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, Indore City Division Indore,
District Indore (M.P.) - 452007.
5. The Post Master, City Chief Post Office, Indore, District Indore (M.P.) -
452007
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Surendra Pratap Singh)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
The applicants in both these Original Applications are aggrieved by the order dated 06.02.2021 and 08.02.2021 respectively, whereby the services Page 2 of 5 3 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021 of the applicants have been terminated vide Para 5 of OM dated 26.08.1967 below Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 on the ground that their signatures were found forged by the Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) in its enquiry.
2. Since the issue involved in both the Original Applications is common, the matter has been taken up and heard together for final disposal by way of a common order. For the purpose of this order, the facts are being taken from OA No.200/104/2021 and the documents referred therein.
3. Earlier, the applicants along with other candidates, have approached this Tribunal by filing Original Applications Nos.200/700/2017 & other connected OAs seeking direction to the respondents to issue appointment/posting orders to them. The said Original Applications were disposed of by a common order dated 04.10.2018 directing the competent authority of the respondent-department to take a decision regarding the appointment of applicants within 15 days from the date of submission of STF report or the time granted in Para 16 of the order, whichever is earlier. Now, as per the impugned orders (Annexure A-6 collectively), the respondents have terminated the services of the applicants. Page 3 of 5 4 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021
4. Learned counsel for the applicants submitted that the services of the applicants have been terminated without affording any opportunity of hearing to them. Further, the so called enquiry was conducted behind the back of the applicants and the applicants were never informed of any such report nor such report supplied to them. Learned counsel for the applicants further stated that the issue involved in these Original Applications is squarely covered by the decision of Principal Bench of this Tribunal dated 20.03.2023 passed in O.A.No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs, filed along with MA No.449/2023.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that after receiving the report of the CFSL, Bhopal, it was found that the person appeared in the examination and the person given the multiple signatures before the committee are not the one and the same person and, therefore, the services of the applicants were terminated vide Para 5 of OM dated 26.08.1967 below Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965.
6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
7. We find that while placing reliance on the order dated 30.05.2021 passed by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.2444/2021 titled Page 4 of 5 5 OA Nos.200/104/2021 & 200/143/2021 as Shri Sumit Surajmal vs. UOI, the Principal Bench has disposed of OA No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs directing the respondents to reinstate the applicants therein alongwith consequential benefits. However, on perusal of the order passed by the Principal Bench, we are unable to record our exclusive finding to the effect that the applicants are also similarly situated to that of applicants before the Principal Bench. But, since learned counsel for the applicants has very categorically stated that the present case is identical to OA No.2241/2022 and other connected two OAs decided by the Principal Bench of this Tribunal, we dispose of both these OAs with a direction to the respondents to examine the case of the applicants in the light of the order passed by the Principal Bench ibid and extend the similar benefits to the present applicants also, if they are similarly placed. This exercise shall be completed within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
8. Accordingly, both these Original Applications are disposed of in the above terms. No costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 5 of 5