VINOD KUMAR SANDLESH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition has been preferred under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the order dated 10.07.2012 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. By virtue of the impugned order dated 10.07.2012, the Tribunal has dismissed three Original Applications being OA No. 4640/2011, OA No. 156/2012 and OA No. 313/2012 as also the C.P. No. 407/2012 arising out of OA No. 313/201 while upholding the relieving order issued by Respondent No.2 requiring the incumbent, namely, Vinod Kumar Sandlesh to relinquish charge of the post held by him at Johannesburg. It may be pointed out that all the three Original Applications were filed on behalf of the petitioner Vinod Kumar Sandlesh against the same set of Respondents, except that in OA No. 313/2012, a private Respondent No.3 (Sh. Anwar Haleem, Dy Director, ICCR) was also impleaded as a party, in addition to other common respondents.

(2.) The necessary facts are stated below:-

(3.) Mr R. Venkatramani, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had been appointed on deputation as Director of ICC with the diplomatic rank of First Secretary on the recommendation of Foreign Services Board and with the approval of the Ministry of External Affairs for a period of three years. It was submitted that although the engagement of the petitioner as Director of ICC at Johannesburg was subject to the provisions of the agreement which was executed between the petitioner and ICCR, the respondent ICCR could not arbitrarily and without reason shorten the tenure of thee years as it did by virtue of the recall order dated 19.12.2011 and the corrigendum dated 18.01.2012. The learned counsel also submitted that the warning letter dated 23.09.2011 was also bad in law as it was preceded by an inquiry of which the petitioner had no notice of.