HARI KANT CHOUDHARY, S/O LATE JAI BHADRA CHOUDHARY Vs. UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH THE CHIEF POST-MASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner takes exception to the order dated 8th December, 2005 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna, whereby the Tribunal allowed the original application filed by the present respondent no. 5 and set aside the appointment of petitioner to the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier in the Postal Department and direction has been given to reinstate the present respondent no. 5 with the continuity of service.

(2.) BEREFT of unnecessary details, the facts in brief are that the Sahiyara Branch Post Office advertised for appointment of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier (now Gramin Dak Sewak Mail Carrier) through the Employment Exchange, Sitamarhi, somewhere in the month of December, 1998. The petitioner, the present respondent no. 5 and one Hari Kishore Prasad participated and ultimately the petitioner was appointed to the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier vide order dated 10th March, 1999. He was found to have given false date of birth and, accordingly, he was terminated from service vide order dated 4th April, 2000. He challenged the order of termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal. During pendency of the original application the present respondent no. 5 was appointed to the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier. The services of respondent no. 5 came to be terminated vide order dated 10th September, 2002. By a separate order of the even date, the present petitioner was given fresh appointment to the post of Extra Departmental Mail Carrier. The present respondent no. 5 (original applicant) challenged the order of his termination before the Central Administrative Tribunal and the appointment of the present petitioner. The order of termination dated 10th September, 2002 was principally challenged on the ground of non -compliance of the relevant rules before termination of the petitioner 'sservices. The postal authorities set -up a stand before the Central Administrative Tribunal that the termination of the original applicant (present respondent no. 5) was termination simpliciter under Rule 8 of Gramin Dak Sevak (Conduct and Employment) Rules corresponding to Rule 6 of Post & Telegraph Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964, and therefore, there was no necessity to hold any disciplinary enquiry.

(3.) THE Central Administrative Tribunal was of the view that even though the order of termination is termination simpliciter, the veil was required to be lifted and upon lifting the veil, the termination order is found to be punitive in nature and since the order was passed without holding an enquiry, it was bad in law. Consequently, the Tribunal vide its order dated 8th December, 2005 quashed and set aside the termination order dated 10th September, 2002. Since the present petitioner (respondent no. 5 therein) was appointed in place of the original applicant, the Tribunal quashed and set aside the order of appointment of the respondent no. 5 (present petitioner).