BASUDEB DEY Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AGGRIEVED by the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 in O.A. No. 173 of 2011 (R) passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna (Circuit Court at Ranchi) in and by which the Original Application filed by the applicant - petitioner herein challenging order of termination dated 08.02.2010 and the speaking order dated 04.02.2011, has been dismissed, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition. The brief facts of the case are that, the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Substitute Bungalow Peon was approved on 18.05.2009 by the General Manager, S.E., Railway, Kolkata. Thereafter, the Declaration No. PD/E/580/Subs. B -Peon/Offer of Apptt. dated 25.05.2009 was issued from the Office of the Deputy Chief Personnel Officer which contained the terms and conditions of the appointment. After medical examination, the order of his engagement was issued and the petitioner assumed duty on 25.06.2009. A show -cause notice dated 07.01.2010 was issued to the petitioner for his unauthorized absence from duty from 04.12.2009. The petitioner submitted his reply on 18.01.2010 and the order of termination from service was issued on 08.02.2010. The petitioner approached the Central Administrative Tribunal in O.A. No. 215 of 2010 (R) which was disposed of vide order dated 29.10.2010 directing the respondent No. 5 to consider the representation of the applicant and pass a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law. The respondent No. 5 passed speaking order dated 04.02.2011 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement in service with back wages. Challenging orders dated 08.02.2010 and 04.02.2011, the petitioner preferred O.A. No. 173 of 2011 (R) which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 30.11.2012.

(2.) CONTENDING that the order of termination dated 08.02.2010 is stigmatic as it contains imputations against the petitioner however, no regular departmental enquiry was held against the petitioner, it is submitted that it is liable to be quashed. It is further submitted that the petitioner was engaged under respondent No. 5 who issued show -cause notice to him and passed the impugned order of termination dated 08.02.2010 and thus, he became the complainant as well as the adjudicator himself. It is thus, submitted that, the order of termination has been passed in complete violation of the rules of natural justice. Alleging judicial impropriety, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that, while in O.A. No. 215 of 2010 (R) vide order dated 29.10.2010 the respondent No. 5 was directed to pass a reasoned and speaking order, in the impugned order dated 30.11.2012 the learned Tribunal has held that a detailed order was not required. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner relied on the following decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: : (2010) 8 SCC 220, : (1984) 2 SCC 578 and : (2000) 3 SCC 588.

(3.) WE have considered the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents on record.