UNION OF INDIA Vs. C A T

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 27. 1. 2000 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur whereby it allowed OA No. 92/97 and set aside the order dated 16. 2. 1996 of the petitioner terminating the respondent employee from service.

(2.) THE factual matrix leading to this writ petition is that admittedly out of three vacancies notified by petitioner No. 2 under letter dated 5. 2. 95, three candidates were selected by the DPC under its order dated 11. 2. 1995 according to which respondent No. 2 (Pawan Kumar Jhanjaria) was selected at S. No. 2, and accordingly, by order dated 28. 7. 1995 (Ann. 3) respondent No. 2 was appointed as Postal Assistant at Chirawa HQ on purely temporary basis duty governed by CCS/cca Rules, with the stipulation that his service would be terminated without prior notice if his educational certificates are found false. As per report dated 4. 10. 1995 (Ann. 4), upon inquiry having been made by Shri N. R. Meena Asstt. Superintendent of Post Offices, Jhunjhunu in consultation with the Statistical Officer, Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna, the educational certificates produced by the respondent No. 2 alongwith his application for appointment as Postal Assistant, were found incorrect, thereby under order dated 16. 2. 1996 (Ann. 5) the petitioner No. 4 terminated respondent No. 2 from service in pursuance of proviso to sub rule (i) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Against his termination, respondent No. 2 had presented representation on 21. 5. 96 followed by reminders dated 6. 6. 96 (Ann. 18 in OA), 30. 6. 96 besides other representations (Annexures A5, A12, A13 & A14 to the OA), but with no response. Hence, respondent No. 2 presented OA No. 92/97 (Ann. 6) before Central Administrative Tribunal Jaipur on 3. 3. 97. THE petitioners (Postal Department) submitted their reply (Ann. 7) to the OA. Rejoinder (Ann. 8) to the petitioners' reply also filed by the respondent employee. After hearing the parties, the Tribunal by its order dated 27. 1. 2000 (Ann. 9) allowed the employee's OA No. 92/97 and set aside his termination holding it as illegal, capricious and in violation of Articles 14, 16 & 311 (2) of the Constitution, and accordingly it directed the postal department (petitioners herein) to reinstate the respondent employee (applicant in OA No. 92/97) in service with all consequential benefits, against which this writ petition arises.

(3.) SECTION 21 of the Administrative Tribunals Act prescribes limitation. Its sub section (1) (a) postulates that: " (1) A Tribunal shall not admit an application,- (a) in a case where a final order such as is mentioned in Clause (a) of sub section (2) of SECTION 20 has been made in connection with the grievance unless the application is made within one year from the date on which such final order has been made. " (b) in a case where an appeal or representation such as in mentioned in Clause (b) of sub section (2) of SECTION 20 has been made and a period of six months had expired thereafter without such final order having been made, within one year from the date of expiry of said period of six months. "