SARITA KUMARI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition stands impugned order dated 3rd September, 2019 passed by Central Administrative Tribunal, Kolkata Bench. Mr. Mukherjee, learned advocate appears on behalf of petitioner and submits, impugned order dismissing his client's petition is bad in law and should be set aside. Rule 8 in Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, whether applicable was only taken into consideration, while dismissing the original application. The Tribunal had itself by earlier order dated 2nd September, 2016, on adjudicating of his client's challenge to earlier order of dismissal dated 16th May, 2016, held, inter alia, as follows:-

(2.) The second termination order dated 20th January, 2017 was passed in similar circumstances and view taken for setting aside earlier termination order, applies. Further submission of Mr. Mukherjee is that the second termination order was pursuant to an order dated 18th January, 2017 of review made by SSPO, Jalpaiguri Division. He refers us to rule 20, which says, the President may review. According to him, SSPO is not President and could not have reviewed. Therefore, the basis of the termination order is erroneous or suffering from lack of jurisdiction. He relies on judgment of Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghi reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, paragraph 4.

(3.) Mr. Paul, learned advocate appears on behalf of Union of India and opposes the petition. He submits, merits of the case, regarding first termination, was expressly mentioned as not having gone into. Impugned order is a good order. The second termination order dated 20th January, 2017, was issued before petitioner could complete three years of service and, hence, application of rule 8 by the employer was correctly upheld by the Tribunal. There should be no interference. Regarding contention of review he submits, this point was not urged before the Tribunal. He reiterates, only contention was whether rule 8 could be resorted to in issuing the second termination dated 20th January, 2017, challenge against which termination was turned down by the Tribunal.