BRIJ MOHAN SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') refusing to interfere with an order of termination purported to have been passed under Rule 6 of the Extra Departmental Agent Conduct and Service Rules, 1964 (hereinafter referred to as "the Recruitment Rules'). The respondent applied for the post of Extra Departmental Delivery Agent and was appointed to the said post. While he was so continuing under the orders of Sub-Divisional Inspector, Post Office, the impugned order dated 4/1/1994 emanated, cancelling the appointment with immediate effect and therefore, the respondent approached the Tribunal. The Tribunal called for the relevant files dealing with the appointment and cancellation thereof and after going through the said files came to the conclusion that there had been some gross irregularities and manipulation in the procedure adopted by the appropriate authority for making appointment in question and as such refused to interfere with the order of cancellation.

(2.) Mr. Mohanty, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant, vehemently contended that the Tribunal was not justified in not interfering with the impugned order of termination, by going through the relevant files as the appellant had no opportunity to examine the files and as such any material which was not in the knowledge of the appellant could not have been utilised by the Tribunal. Mr. Mohanty further contends that the impugned order of the Tribunal must be held to be vitiated on the ground of not following the principle of natural justice as has been held by this Court in the case of Shridhar v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and Ors. [jt 1989 (4) SC 327]. Learned Counsel further urged that in any event the procedure prescribed under Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules not having been complied with, inasmuch as there was neither one month's notice nor the compensation in lieu thereof to the appellant, the order of termination is vitiated. So far as the third ground is concerned, it does not appear from the order of the Tribunal that the appellant had taken this plea, though from the order it appears that the direction was that the cancellation should be given immediate effect.

(3.) So far as the first two grounds on which Mr. Mohanty attacks the impugned order, the same would depend upon the relevant provisions under which the employment is being terminated. In the case in hand, Rule 6 of the Recruitment Rules unequivocally authorised the employer to terminate the services at any time by notice in writing, given either by the employee to the authority or by the appointing authority to the employee and period of notice as indicated is one month. Obviously, the appellant had not completed more than 3 years of continuous service on the date of the order of termination, Therefore, the order of termination emanated in exercise of power under the said Rule. That apart, the conclusion of the Tribunal on inspection of the relevant files , strikes at the root of the matter inasmuch as some gross irregularities appear to have been committed in the matter in the appointment of the appellant. We need not dilate any further on this issue since the Tribunal itself had the privilege of going through the appointment and cancellation file. In view of the gross irregularities and illegalities committed for securing the appointment in question, the appointee cannot claim any right to the post.