om:28-cl-2023-Mar — Termination of engagement, be it temporary or permanent, is illegal if it does not satisfy the principles of natural justice

Termination of engagement, be it temporary or permanent, is illegal if it does not satisfy the principles of natural justice — This chunk describes an Original Application (O.A.) No. 260/0022 of 2015, where a person contested the termination of his provisional appointment as GDS PKR/MC due to non-compliance with principles o... — Facts: The Applicant was issued with an order to function as GDS PKR/MC in February, 2014 until further orders. Later he was offered provisional appointment for the post of GDS PKR/MC for a period of 89 days from 1-2-2013 or till regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier. The period of engagement was extended up to July, 2014. In an Order, dated 23-6-2014, he was engaged in the said post with TRCA of ₹ 2,295-45-3,695 along with attendant allowances with clear understanding that such engagement was in the nature of contract liable to be terminated without any notice. Subsequently by an Order, dated 12-1-2015, the Applicant was offered provisional appointment for a period of 89 days from mid December, 2014 to mid February, 2015. This order being in deviation with the earlier order engaging him on contract basis, the Applicant moved the Tribunal with this OA seeking quashing of the Order, dated 12-1-2015. Respondents have filed their counter annexing an Order, dated 19-12-2014 wherein cancellation of the Order, dated 23-6-2014 whereby the engagement of the Applicant was terminated with immediate effect. According to them, GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001 envisages for termination of service of GDS at any time even without any notice and the appointee shall have no claim for appointment to the said post or any other post. Since the engagement of the Applicant was not in accordance with the rules by following the due procedure, the procedure required to be followed in case of termination was not attracted. Non-exhaustion of administrative remedy was yet another objection to non-suit the Applicant. In his rejoinder, the Applicant asserted that the Asst. Superintendent of Post Offices has no authority to terminate the services of the Applicant as the authority empowered to cancel the engagement/terminate once an incumbent is appointed on regular basis is an authority superior to that who had appointed the person. It was also canvassed that order cancelling the earlier order of regular engagement was never communicated to the Applicant. Neither opportunity of being heard or one month's notice in lieu of one month's pay was given to the Applicant. The Applicant has referred to a decided case in support of his case, where termination without giving opportunity of being heard was held bad in law by the Division Bench of the Tribunal, which has also been upheld by the High Court. Respondents reiterated that since the very appointment of the Applicant was illegal and is in violation of the provisions of the rules, and the mandate enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India, termination for non-compliance of the principles of natural justice or of that non-payment of one month's pay in lieu of one month's salary cannot be a ground to nullify the order of termination.