om:46-cl-2023-Apr — 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 — The chunk discusses the respondents' arguments regarding termination of service for GDS (Grameen Dak Sewak) employees as per the GDS Conduct and Employment Rules, 2001, which allows termination witho... — Facts: The Applicant was issued with an order engaging him as GDS / MC on 1-6-2010 until further orders. Later, he was offered provisional appointment for the post of GDS / MC for a period from 1-12-2010 to 31-3-2013 or till regular appointment is made, whichever is earlier. In an Order, dated 2-12-2013, 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 12-12-2014 to 28-2-2015. 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 containing 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 envisage 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 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 once an incumbent is appointed on regular basis, the authority empowered to cancel the engagement/terminate 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 Art. 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.

The Tribunal held that fair play is a part of public policy and a guarantee for justice to citizens. Natural justice generally requires that when persons are liable to be directly affected by proposed administrative acts, decisions or proceedings be given adequate notice of what is proposed so that they may be in a position

(a) to make representation, on their own behalf;

(b) or to appear at a hearing or enquiry; and

(c) effectively to prepare their own case and to answer the case they had to meet. Law is clear that public orders publicly made in exercise of statutory power cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant or of what was in his mind or what he intended to do. Thus the stand that no notice need be given cannot be accepted. Further, citing yet another decision of the Division Bench of the Tribunal which had been upheld by the High Court, the Tribunal extracted certain portions of the judgment of the High Court, which inter alia held that the ratio of the decision laid down by the Supreme Court is that non-arbitrariness is an essential facet of Art. 14 of the Constitution.