ANULAL O Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Ajith Prakash for the petitioner and Sri Jai Mohan, holding for Sri M. Gopikrishna Nambiar, counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner as per Ext.P3 is contracted to work as Junior Customer Agent in the fourth respondent. The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 order dated 01.02.2019 derostering petitioner as illegal, the order suffers from the violation of principles of natural justice and amounts to denying the petitioner the contract appointment granted by Ext.P3 without just cause or reason. After referring to a few circumstances and treating the commissions noted by the fourth respondent as constituting misconduct, the fourth respondent through Ext.P10 de-rostered the petitioner from duties till further orders. This Court, with a view to briefly state the controversy between the parties, excerpts Ext.P10 for appreciation and immediate reference.

(3.) The petitioner challenges Ext.P10 as completely illegal, contrary to Ext.P3 contract appointment and that de-roster, through which the petitioner is prevented from discharging duties as Junior Customer Agent, neither is contemplated by Ext.P3 contract appointment nor that service regulations applicable to the case on hand justify de-rostering the petitioner from duties. In other words, firstly there is no enquiry pending against petitioner, secondly Ext.P3 virtually amounts to physically preventing the petitioner from working as Junior Customer Agent in fourth respondent Company. The petitioner therefore prays for setting aside Ext.P10 and for the payment of wages etc.