om:19-cl-2012-feb — None should be terminated from service, in this case, the Applicant holding the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (Mail Deliverer) (GDS / MD) (Postal Department) without giving them an opportunity of hearing them before termination of their service

None should be terminated from service, in this case, the Applicant holding the post of Gramin Dak Sevak (Mail Deliverer) (GDS / MD) (Postal Department) without giving them an opportunity of hearing them before termination of their service — This chunk is a part of a legal decision (O.A. No. 362 of 2006) regarding the termination of an employee holding the post of Gramin Dak Sevak without providing him an opportunity to be heard before h... — Facts: The Applicant, a GDS (MD) was appointed on provisional basis to that post on 6-6-2003 as per Notification, dated 29-11-2002 issued by Superintendent of Post Offices, R-1 herein. He continued in that post for over two years without any complaint. All of a sudden, he was dismissed from service without issuing any show-cause notice. The Applicant submits that the dismissal is violation of natural justice and against provisions contained in Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001. Hence he filed this OA resisting his dismissal. The Respondents submit that no show-cause notice is required before terminating his services as he is a provisional appointee. The Tribunal read Rule 8 of GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 which stipulates issue of show-cause notice of one month to a GDS who had put in 3 years of service before terminating his services based on his reply to the notice. Here the Applicant who had served for more than 2 years of continuous service was terminated without any showcause notice pointing out any irregularity committed by him or any illegality in his appointment as a GDS. Hence this OA deserves to be allowed. Rule 8 referred above emanates from the principle of natural justice. In this connection, the Tribunal took note of their earlier judgments in O.A. Nos. 226 of 2004, 322 of 2004, etc., - D.B. Patil and others v. Union of India and others, wherein the necessity of giving an opportunity of being heard is emphasized. The Supreme Court judgment in case of Brij Mohan Singh v. Union of India and others [ 2001 (2) SC (SLJ) 148 ] relied upon by the Applicant; the Applicant therein was terminated because of gross irregularity and manipulation about procedure by appropriate authority for making appointment in question. Hence that judgment has no relevance to the present case. The case of Postmaster-General, Kolkata and others v. Tutu Das (Dutta) [ 2007 (2) SCC (L&S) 179 ] referred by the Applicant is also not relevant as the Applicant in that case was a substitute employee. In the case of Shridhar Ram Dular v. Nagar Palika, Jaunpur and others [ 1990 SCC (L&S) 600 ], the Apex Court observed that it is an elementary principle of natural justice that no person should be condemned without hearing. That principle is applicable in this case.