AARASADA SURYA MOULI Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner -Arasada Surya Mouli, in this writ application, has sought to challenge the order dated 12.7.2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No.558 of 1995 whereby the Tribunal has dismissed his challenge to the order dated 2.9.1995 passed under Rule -6 of the E.D.A. (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 terminating the services of the petitioner as an EDD Agent of Rayagada Head Post Office just after expiry of one and half months from the date of issue of Notice to that effect.

(2.) THE petitioner had worked under the Postal Department as an ED Mail Escort in the Bus route from Rayagada to Jeypore for about nine years from 1.8.1976. It appears that a post of EDD Agent fell vacant in Rayagada Head Post Office and the name of the petitioner along with five others were recommended by the Employment Exchange for the said post. On verification of necessary documents, the petitioner was selected for the post and he joined as such on 30.4.1994. After about one and half years of his joining, he was received with a Notice informing him that his services shall stand terminated after one month of receiving the Notice as his appointment was found to be irregular. Learned counsel for the petitioner asserted that the petitioner had passed H.S.C. examination from the Andhra Board of Secondary Education in the year 1970 and he has secured 40% marks whereas the minimum requisite qualification for the post of EDD Agent is VIIIth standard. The petitioner had made a representation on 6.9.1995 against the Notice of termination to which the Opp.parties had stated that since he has not secured highest marks, his selection is found to be irregular. Learned counsel further asserted that the High School Certificate Examination passed by the petitioner was after completing 11th Class, whereas the other candidates are mere matriculates and further, the selection was made by giving weightage to the nine years of service rendered by him to the Postal Department. It is further asserted that under the pressure of the Employees Union, Opp.party No.3 took steps for removing the petitioner from service. According to him the order of termination was issued without affording the petitioner an opportunity of hearing and without conducting any inquiry. It was contended that except the petitioner no body else was considered suitable for the post having nine years experience in Postal Department. It was further contended that respondent No.3, the reviewing authority, had issued letter to respondent No.4 directing him to terminate the petitioners appointment. The petitioners contention before the Tribunal was that his appointing authority was the respondent No.4 i.e. the Head Post Master, Head Post Office, Rayagada, he alone could have taken a decision on the question of terminating his service, but since respondent No.4 had, in fact, issued the letter of termination in terms of the direction/opinion of respondent No.3 i.e. Senior Superintendent of Post Offices, the order must be treated as effectively being an order by respondent No.3 having been communicated by respondent No.4 and therefore, ought to be declared illegal. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the order of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No.558 of 1995 was relied upon by the Postal Department in a matter before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras and the Full Bench of CAT, Madras disposed of that matter and in the said judgment in the case of R. Jambukeswaran and others v. Union of India & others, was reported in A.T. Full Bench Judgments 2002 -03 at page -200. In the said Full Bench judgment, the Postal Department referred to the impugned judgment in support of their action and the Full Bench dealt with the matter in that judgment in the following manner :

(3.) THE view expressed by the Full Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Madras has been reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India and Others v. Bikash Kuanar, (Civil Appeal No.4388 of 2006, decided on 10.10.2006). In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court affirmed the order of the Orissa High Court whereby the Orissa High Court had set aside the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal passed in O.A. No.6 of 1999 holding that in terms of 1964 Rules, which was prevalent at the relevant time, the superior authority had no statutory power to direct cancellation of selection. That judgment has been followed by this Bench in the case of the Union of India and others v. Radhashyam Sahoo and Another, (OJC No.1394 of 2000, disposed of on 05.08.2008) and the said judgment also covers the facts of the present case.