SAMITA TAUDU Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 has been filed by Shri Samita Taudu, wherein this Tribunal is to adjudicate/decide as to whether the order of cancellation of his appointment as Chowkidar (under Annexure-4 dated 9th January, 1991) in the Office of the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax (Berhampur) is legal, valid, and justified on the face of the fact as enumerated by the Applicant in his Original Application.

(2.) For effective adjudication of this matter, a few fact of the case is necessary to be referred to. The fact remains that the Applicant was engaged on 4.4.1985 as a contingent paid staff in the Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ganjam. While discharging his duties as such, intermittently, a Criminal Case was instituted against him (under Section 498-A and 304-B, IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act) and he was taken to custody on 31.9.1987. Ultimately, on 4.4.1989, the Learned Additfonal Sessions Judge (Ganjam at Berhampur) in Session Trial Case No. 19/1988 convicted the Applicant and sentenced him for eight years imprisonment. Applicant preferred appeal against the said order of conviction and sentences in the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa and, ultimately, by order dated 17.12.1992, he acquitted. In the meantime, vide order dated 24.12.1990 (of the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Hqrs.) Orissa, Bhubaneswar) under Annexure-3 he was enlisted and appointed as Chowkidar in the Office of the CIT being a contingent paid worker. Subsequently, under Annexure-4, dated 9.1.1991) the said order of appointment dated 2.1.1991 was cancelled. It is the case of the Applicant that, on being acquitted, he had submitted representations for his reinstatement/appointment; but the same was rejected (under Annexure-6 dated 22.4.1996) intimating him (the Applicant) the reason of the cancellation of the appointment. It was disclosed that as he was in Jail custody (as a result of the order of conviction) at the time of issuance of the order of his appointment, the same was cancelled, on detection of the fact of his conviction.

(3.) HEARD learned Counsel for both sides and perused the records. Learned Counsel for the Applicant, in course of hearing submitted that as the order of termination was cancelled without giving any opportunity to the Applicant, the same is illegal being arbitrary and violative of the principles of natural justice. Further it was submitted by the learned Counsel for the Applicant that as he has been acquitted in the meanwhile, he ought to have been reinstated in service. Mr. Bose, Learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing for the Respondents submitted that conviction order has nothing to do which regard to the order of cancellation of the appointment. As the order of appointment was issued in favour of the applicant by mistake, the authorities/Department have the power to correct their mistake at any point of time; more so, when the same was issued when the applicant was in custody pursuant to the order of conviction passed on 4.4.1989 by the Learned Additional Sessions Judge (Ganjam) in S.T. Case No. 19/1988. It has, further been submitted by Mr. Bose, learned Senior Standing Counsel that as the Applicant had not joined the post (even after issuance of the order of appointment) no right can said to have been accrued in his favour and, as such, principles of natural justice was not at all attracted in this case requiring reinstatement/ regularisation of the Applicant.