UNION OF INDIA Vs. RATI PAL SAROJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The respondent Rati Pal Saroj was, at the material time, Under-Secretary, Union Public Service Commission as a Grade-I Officer of the Central Secretariat Service. He appeared for the Civil Services Examination 1985. On the basis of the results declared the respondent was offered an appointment to the Indian Administrative Service by a letter dated 31st July, 1986. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment by his telegram of 5th August, 1986.

(2.) Under the letter of appointment respondent was required to join the Lal Bahadur Shastri National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie as a probationer on 24th August, 1986. A copy of joining instructions was also enclosed with the letter of appointment. The respondent was, however, not relieved from the post of Under-Secretary, Union Public Service Commission to join the National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. The Union Public Service Commission's letter to the respondent dated 22nd August, 1986 directed the respondent not to handover charge of his office or get relieved as Under-Secretary, Union Public Service Commission until he got specific orders in this regard. Since he was not relieved from his post the respondent could not join the Indian Administrative Service as a probationer at the National Academy of Administration, Mussoorie. On 7th September, 1986 C. B. I. registered a complaint against the respondent and certain other persons to the effect that the respondent and these persons had entered into a criminal conspiracy whereby the originally written answer-papers of the respondent in the Civil Services Examination were clandestinely removed and substituted by other answer-papers. The respondent had abused his official position as a public servant and an official of the Union Public Service Commission in doing so. The appellant, by letter dated 9th September, 1986 withdrew its offer of appointment to the Indian Administrative Service made to the respondent by the letter of 31st July, 1986 and stated that the same should be treated as cancelled. The respondent was detained in custody on 10th September, 1986. He was suspended from Central Secretariat Service with effect from 10th September, 1986 and a departmental inquiry was also started. The respondent was served with a charge-sheet on 21st November, 1989. However, on the application of the respondent, the departmental inquiry has been ordered to be kept in abeyance because of the pending criminal proceedings.

(3.) The respondent filed an application before the Central Administrative Tribunal challenging the withdrawal/cancellation of his appointment to the Indian Administrative Service by the letter of 9th September, 1986. The Tribunal held that the offer could not have been withdrawn after acceptance; if such a step became necessary the principles of natural justice would warrant giving a hearing to the respondent. So long as the respondent was not relieved from his previous post the offer of appointment should be treated as if it were in abeyance. The offer could not be withdrawn. The Tribunal, therefore, allowed the application of the respondent. Hence the present appeal by the appellant.