Brij Mohan Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 5918 of 1997
Petitioner: Brij Mohan Singh
Respondent: Union of India & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 5918 of 1997
Judges: G.B. PATTANAIK & B.N. AGRAWAL, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jan 24, 2001
Head Note:
SERVICE LAWS
Extra Departmental Agent Conduct and Service Rules, 1964
Rule 6 – Termination – Extra Departmental Delivery Agent – Ap-pointment cancelled – Tribunal refusing to interfere – No notice of one month nor pay in lieu thereof – Gross irregularities and manipulations noted – Period of 3 years not completed. Held that no right to hold the post, was created. Absence of notice or pay in lieu thereof would not vitiate the termination. Employee at the most can claim one month’s pay. (Paras 3,4)
Cases Reffered:
1. Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur & Ors. (JT 1989 (4) SC 327) (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) refusing to interfere with an order of termination purported to have been passed under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agent Conduct and Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Recruitment Rules’). The respondent applied for the post of Extra Departmen-tal Delivery Agent and was appointed to the said post. While he was so continuing under the orders of Sub-Divisional Inspector, Post Office, the impugned order dated 4.1.1994 emanated, cancell-ing the appointment with immediate effect and therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal called for the relevant files dealing with the appointment and cancellation thereof and after going through the said files came to the con-clusion that there had been some gross irregularities and manipu-lation in the procedure adopted by the appropriate authority for making appointment in question and as such refused to interfere with the order of cancellation.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in not interfering with the impugned order of termination, by going through the relevant files as the appellant had no opportunity to examine the files and as such any material which was not in the knowledge of the appellant could not have been utilised by the Tribunal. Mr. Mohanty further contends that the impugned order of the Tribunal must be held to be vitiated on the ground of not following the principle of natural justice as has been held by this Court in the case of Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur & Ors. (JT 1989 (4) SC 327). Learned Counsel further urged that in any event the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules not having been complied with, inasmuch as there was neither one month’s notice nor the compen-sation in lieu thereof to the appellant, the order of termination is vitiated. So far as the third ground is concerned, it does not appear from the order of the Tribunal that the appellant had taken this plea, though from the order it appears that the direc-tion was that the cancellation should be given immediate effect.
3. So far as the first two grounds on which Mr.Mohanty attacks the impugned order, the same would depend upon the relevant provisions under which the employment is being terminated. In the case in hand, Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules unequivocally au-thorised the employer to terminate the services at any time by notice in writing, given either by the employee to the authority or by the appointing authority to the employee and period of notice as indicated is one month. Obviously, the appellant had not completed more than 3 years of continuous service on the date of the order of termination.Therefore, the order of termination emanated in exercise of power under the said Rule. That apart, the conclusion of the Tribunal on inspection of the relevant files , strikes at the root of the matter inasmuch as some gross irregularities appear to have been committed in the matter in the appointment of the appellant. We need not dilate any further on this issue since the Tribunal itself had the privilege of going through the appointment and cancellation file. In view of the gross irregularities and illegalities committed for securing the appointment in question, the appointee cannot claim any right to the post.
4. So far as the contention in relation to non-compliance of the provision of Rule 6 is concerned, firstly the same does not appear to have been taken before the Tribunal. Secondly, on a plain reading of the provision of Rule 6 and the proviso thereto, it is clear that it would not vitiate the order of termination ipso facto and the employee will be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of basic pay plus dearness allowance for the period of notice at the same rate which he was drawing month-ly before the termination or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Mr.Mohanty urged before us that the note to the aforesaid Rule, as well as the form indicated therein, support the proposition that the payment of compensation in lieu of one month’s notice must be simultane-ous with the order of termination or else the order of termina-tion would be vitiated. We are unable to accept this submission. The provision contained in proviso to Rule 6 from the very lan-guage of the proviso entitles the delinquent a month’s basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice. In this view of the matter, even assuming that the said payment has not been made along with the order of termination, the order of termination will not get vitiated on that score.
5. In the aforesaid premises we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to mention that the order of termination would not debar the appell-ant to apply for any other service and get appointed thereto.
1. This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) refusing to interfere with an order of termination purported to have been passed under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agent Conduct and Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Recruitment Rules’). The respondent applied for the post of Extra Departmen-tal Delivery Agent and was appointed to the said post. While he was so continuing under the orders of Sub-Divisional Inspector, Post Office, the impugned order dated 4.1.1994 emanated, cancell-ing the appointment with immediate effect and therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal called for the relevant files dealing with the appointment and cancellation thereof and after going through the said files came to the con-clusion that there had been some gross irregularities and manipu-lation in the procedure adopted by the appropriate authority for making appointment in question and as such refused to interfere with the order of cancellation.
2. Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in not interfering with the impugned order of termination, by going through the relevant files as the appellant had no opportunity to examine the files and as such any material which was not in the knowledge of the appellant could not have been utilised by the Tribunal. Mr. Mohanty further contends that the impugned order of the Tribunal must be held to be vitiated on the ground of not following the principle of natural justice as has been held by this Court in the case of Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur & Ors. (JT 1989 (4) SC 327). Learned Counsel further urged that in any event the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules not having been complied with, inasmuch as there was neither one month’s notice nor the compen-sation in lieu thereof to the appellant, the order of termination is vitiated. So far as the third ground is concerned, it does not appear from the order of the Tribunal that the appellant had taken this plea, though from the order it appears that the direc-tion was that the cancellation should be given immediate effect.
3. So far as the first two grounds on which Mr.Mohanty attacks the impugned order, the same would depend upon the relevant provisions under which the employment is being terminated. In the case in hand, Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules unequivocally au-thorised the employer to terminate the services at any time by notice in writing, given either by the employee to the authority or by the appointing authority to the employee and period of notice as indicated is one month. Obviously, the appellant had not completed more than 3 years of continuous service on the date of the order of termination.Therefore, the order of termination emanated in exercise of power under the said Rule. That apart, the conclusion of the Tribunal on inspection of the relevant files , strikes at the root of the matter inasmuch as some gross irregularities appear to have been committed in the matter in the appointment of the appellant. We need not dilate any further on this issue since the Tribunal itself had the privilege of going through the appointment and cancellation file. In view of the gross irregularities and illegalities committed for securing the appointment in question, the appointee cannot claim any right to the post.
4. So far as the contention in relation to non-compliance of the provision of Rule 6 is concerned, firstly the same does not appear to have been taken before the Tribunal. Secondly, on a plain reading of the provision of Rule 6 and the proviso thereto, it is clear that it would not vitiate the order of termination ipso facto and the employee will be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of basic pay plus dearness allowance for the period of notice at the same rate which he was drawing month-ly before the termination or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month. Mr.Mohanty urged before us that the note to the aforesaid Rule, as well as the form indicated therein, support the proposition that the payment of compensation in lieu of one month’s notice must be simultane-ous with the order of termination or else the order of termina-tion would be vitiated. We are unable to accept this submission. The provision contained in proviso to Rule 6 from the very lan-guage of the proviso entitles the delinquent a month’s basic allowance plus dearness allowance for the period of notice. In this view of the matter, even assuming that the said payment has not been made along with the order of termination, the order of termination will not get vitiated on that score.
5. In the aforesaid premises we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The appeal accordingly fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs. Needless to mention that the order of termination would not debar the appell-ant to apply for any other service and get appointed thereto.
