UNION OF INDIA Vs. DEVENDRA PRASAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners have challenged the legality of the orderdated 26th May, 2005, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'Tribunal') in O.A.No. 76 of 2005 (Devendra Prasad vs. The Union of India & Ors.).

(2.) Relevant facts essential for the disposal of the writ petition may be indicated. That the post of GDS MD/MC at Branch Post Office Bathua, in the District of Samastipur, fell vacant due to deputation of the permanent incumbent of the said office to Army Postal Service. To fill up the said vacancy, the post was notified through the Employment Exchange in the month of July 2001. It was found the said post was reserved for O.B.C. category. Several applicants, including the respondent herein applied for the post. After verification of document respondent was appointed as GDS MD - cum - GDS MC, Bathua, Branch Office, by the competent authority vide order dated 27.09.2001. Said appointment of respondent was reviewed by the Director, Postal Services, Northern Region, Muzaffarpur. A show -cause notice dated 30 -06 -2003 (Annexure -1), was served upon the respondent indicating that he had neither submitted O.B.C. certificate from the competent authority in the prescribed proforma nor he had submitted documents of title relating to property in support of his annual income. The respondent filed his show - cause, stating therein that he had submitted the caste certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Officer, Samastipur dated 31 -07 - 1995. He, however, claimed that the proof of landed property was not mandatory, therefore, the same was not furnished. The authorities vide communication dated 17.02.2004 (Annexure -2), directed him to furnish caste Certificate issued by the District Magistrate/ Deputy Commissioner. The respondent furnished the said certificate issued by the District Magistrate, Samastipur. Thereafter it appears that few opportunities was/were given to him to submit documents of title exclusively in his name which he failed to furnish. Accordingly the authorities terminated his service by communication dated 11 -01 -2005 (Annexure -5), leading to the filing of original application bearing no. 76 of 2005, the same was allowed hence the writ petition.

(3.) We have carefully gone through the impugned order and the materials placed on record. It appears that the Postal authorities themselves issued different communications instructing the respondent to furnish necessary documents relating to caste status as well as landed property. Those documents appears to have been furnished. On consideration of the entire materials on record, the learned Tribunal has allowed the original application with a direction to immediately reinstate the respondent herein to the post he was given in the appointment letter.