UNION OF INDIA Vs. SANTOSH KUMAR ROUT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the present writ petition, challenge has been made to the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack (for short, 'the Tribunal') dated 01.04.2005 passed in O.A. No.53 of 2004 on the ground that the said order is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the provisions of law.

(2.) PETITIONERS ' case in a nutshell is that the opposite party Sri Santosh Kumar Rout was appointed provisionally on 08.07.1997 as an E.D./GDS Packer, Aerodrome Area, PO: Bhubaneswar. On 10.06.1999, an order was passed by the Sr. Superintendent of Post Offices, Bhubaneswar terminating his services with a direction that he would be entitled to claim equivalent to the basic allowance plus D.A. for the period of notice at the same rate he was drawing immediately before passing of the order. Challenging the said order, opposite party filed O.A. bearing No.282 of 1999 praying therein to quash the order of termination. Before the Tribunal, the respondent -Union of India filed a counter indicating the irregularities in the selection process followed by Sub -divisional Inspector, Postal, South Division, Bhubaneswar showing undue favour to the applicant by not calling the names from the Employment Exchange. The public notice dated 24.07.1997 stated to have been issued to various authorities was, in fact, not sent by registered post and there were other irregularities committed. The opposite party being beneficiary of such irregular appointment, his services were rightly terminated. Said O.A. No.282 of 1999 was allowed on 15.03.2000 quashing the order of termination. However, liberty was given to the present petitioners to issue show cause notice against proposed order of termination and only after considering the reply of the opposite party to take a decision in the matter as deemed fit. Pursuant to said direction, opposite party was issued with notice dated 08.01.2004 to show cause as to why his services as Gramin Dak Sevak Packer (previously called as ED Mail Deliverer) in Aerodrome Area, PO: Bhubaneswar shall not be terminated as his entry into the service was not found congenial to the procedural Rules. On 21.01.2004, the opposite party filed his reply to the said show cause notice. However, apprehending penal action, the opposite party filed O.A. No.53 of 2004 on 20.02.2004 challenging the said show cause notice on the ground that he was duly selected and should not suffer for no fault of his; secondly, show cause notice was issued belatedly and it should have been issued within six months from the date of receipt of order passed in O.A. No.282 of 1999; since show cause notice has not been issued within six months, the respondent -petitioners are estopped from issuing such notice thereafter.

(3.) MR . Dhalsamanta, learned counsel appearing for the opposite party submitted that the Sub -Divisional Inspector, Postal started selection process to fill up the post of Extra Departmental Packer (re -designated as DGSMP), Aerodrome Area Sub -Post Office by sending requisition to the Employment Exchange, Bhubaneswar to sponsor candidates for the said post vide Memo No.A -73 dated 29.04.1998. As the Employment Exchange did not sponsor candidates within 30 days from the date of issue of such letter, public notification was issued vide Memo dated 03.06.1998, the copy of which was sent by registered post to (i) SPM, Aerodrome Area S.O., (ii) Sub -Post Master, Airport, NDTSO, Bhubaneswar, (iii) Block Development Officer, Bhubaneswar Block (iv) Tahasildar, Bhubaneswar, (v) SPM, Bhimatangi, Bhubaneswar, (vii) Officer in -charge of Aerodrome Area PS, viii) Executive Officer, BMC and (viii) Senior Post Master, GPO, Bhubaneswar. In response to the said public notice, the opposite party submitted his candidature along with all relevant documents within the stipulated period. The opposite party was initially appointed as ED Packer, Aerodrome Area provisionally on 04.04.1998 which was made regular on 30.06.1998 on the basis of due procedure of selection for the post in question. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal suffers from no illegality and is based on judicial pronouncement. Judgment dated 08.07.2004 of the Delhi High Court is not applicable in case of opposite party as the opposite party has been selected and appointed on the basis of due procedure of selection for the post of GDSMP. Forty candidates were sponsored for the post in question on 28.05.1998 by the Employment Exchange on the basis of the requisition. The petitioners have taken inconsistent stands in their counter. The opposite party has not committed any omission or commission insofar as selection and appointment to the post in question is concerned. The opposite party was selected and appointed through a regular selection process. Concluding his argument, Mr. Dhalsamanta prays for dismissal of the writ petition.