RAMESH CHANDRA BAISAK Vs. INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES, DHENKANAL SUB-DIVISION
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
RAMESH CHANDRA BAISAK
INSPECTOR OF POST OFFICES, DHENKANAL SUB-DIVISION
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) Petitioner was employed as an Extra-Departmental Packer having been appointed on 13-3-1972. A theft took place in the Bhuban Sub-Post Office on 21-4-1974 and petitioner was one of the accused persons facing charges under Ss. 457 and 380, I. P. C. On a finding that the prosecution failed to establish the charges, petitioner was one of the accused persons were acquitted. Thereafter in exercise of powers conferred under R. 6 of the Rules relating to the Conduct and Services of the Posts and Telegraphs Extra-Departmental Agents, petitioner's services were terminated. Notwithstanding the termination on 28-4-1974 (Annexure-A), petitioner was called upon to show cause on 26-3-1976 (Annexure-3) and again on 31-3-1976 (Annexure-1) as to why his services may not be terminated on account of the two different charges and ultimately an order of termination from service was passed on 11-4-1976 (Annexure-4). Petitioner assails the termination on the ground that he having put in more than three years of continuous service from the date of appointment, R. 6 of the Rules was not attracted.
(2.) In the counter-affidavit, opposite parties have pleaded that petitioner's services had actually been terminated on 28-4-1974 and he was not in employment thereafter. They rely on an admission contained in a representation of the petitioner to the departmental authorities (Annexure-B) where this fact has been categorically stated. It is the stand of the opposite parties that the two proceedings and the subsequent order of termination, all taken in 1976, had no foundation because the relationship of master and servant had ceased to exist from 1974 and learned Standing Counsel explains it by saying that it was a mistake.
(3.) The original of Annexure-B has been produced and Mr. Ramdas does not dispute it to be a genuine document. In the second paragraph of that representation, petitioner has stated :
"That while I was working as E. D. Packer, Bhuban S. O., I was terminated from service dated 27-4-74 in connection with an alleged loss of Rs 1,000/- from B. O. Bag of Chandipal B. O. at Bhauban S. O."
This document had been produced along with the counter-affidavit filed on 11-8-1977. Though more than 8 months have passed since the document has been relied upon by the opposite parties for the submission that petitioner's services came to be terminated on 27-4-1974, petitioner has not filed any further affidavit to challenge the correctness of the position. We must accordingly hold that petitioner's services had come to an end by the order of termination under Annexure-A dated 28-4-1974 and he was not in employment at any time thereafter. If petitioner's services are found to have been dispensed with on 28-4-1974, he would not have to his credit three years of continuous service and, therefore, R. 6 would be attracted.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.