N. RAJENDRAN Vs. DIVISIONAL ENGINEER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question raised for decision in this Original Petition is one on which this court as well as the Supreme Court has spoken. Exts. P1, P2 and P3 are orders passed by the Divisional Engineer, Telegraphs, Palghat, terminating the services of petitioners 1,2 and 3 as Telephone Operators in purported exercise of power under Sub rule (1) of R.5 of the Central Civil Services Temporary Services R.1965. The petitioners had joined duty earlier on 12-6-1980, 16-3-81 and 18-6-1981 respectively. R.5(1) of the Rules referred to provides for termination of temporary service in the manner indicated in that rule. That rule reads:

(2.) A belated attempt has been made to justify the retention of Juniors on the ground that the Juniors retained are a separate class. It is said that the petitioners have some blemishes in their official career whereas those juniors who are retained have not. This averment is not found in the counter affidavit filed originally an additional counter affidavit is seen filed in Court on 4-2-1983. Therein mention is made, in Para.4, of certain charges framed against the 1st petitioner, the award of punishment of censure on 5-10-1981 by Ext. R1(c) order and later a chargesheet against him for non maintenance of out turn slips and subsequent issue of dies non order against the 1st petitioner for failure to maintain out turn slips for a certain period. We are not concerned with the 2nd petitioner here because the 2nd petitioner is no longer interested in the matter and has opted out by removing himself from the party array. So the only person is the 3rd petitioner. The 3rd petitioner is also not free from blemishes. He also was responsible for non maintenance of out turn slips. A memo was issued to him and consequently a dies non order was also issued for failure to maintain outturn slips for a certain period. To under stand this charge of failure to maintain out turn slips one has to understand the back ground. There was an agitation by the P & T employees for ventilating their grievances against the department which agitation was spread over a period of about 15 days, the out turn of trunk class handled by those who manned at that time was said to be poor and evidently the action taken in all these is a follow up action consequent on such agitation. It was further mentioned in the additional counter affidavit that the Juniors Smt. M. R. Rajambal, Shri. T. V. Ramadas, Smt. Sobhana Kumari and Shri. Sathish Chandrakumar though juniors to the petitioners are persons free from blemishes unlike the petitioners. It is averred:

(3.) Suffice to say that some belated research seems to have been made to find out some reason or other to answer the plea that Junior were allowed to continue when seniors were sent out We asked the learned counsel for the respondents to tell us plainly and unequivocally whether there was any material in any file which would show that at the time of issue of the order terminating the services of petitioners 1 and 3 and question why juniors were to be retained was ever considered or was in their contemplation. Whether such juniors retained were of a different class never arose for consideration at any earlier point of time. The learned counsel frankly said with reference to the files with him arid which was placed before the court that there was no material whatsoever to indicate that this was the reason for retaining the juniors while sending out the juniors. Therefore they were not treated as a different class and retained as such while the petitioners were sent out. A belated attempt to find an excuse for the wrong conduct cannot be justified. Not that we are in any way impressed with the plea that there is a basis for treating the four juniors differently. Even according to their own showing in regard to one of them not only the charge sheet was not withdrawn, but the dies non too operates, but it is said that her out turn was better. We can only say that it is a very frivolous way of meeting a contention in the petition which ought to be taken very seriously by the respondents and answered accordingly. Hence following the decision of the Supreme court in The Manager, Government Branch Press and another v. D. B. Belliappa (AIR 1979 SC 429) we allow the original Petition and hold that the orders as against petitioners 1 and 3 terminating their services was invalid and was contrary to law and therefore they may be treated as continuing in service. Petitioners 1 and 3 may be Reinstated forthwith giving them all benefits as if they continued in service all along. The dues payable to them must be settled without any further delay and at any rate within four months.