om:55-cl-2020-May — GDS employee, if to be terminated, opportunity of hearing the said GDS employee is to be given as per Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011

GDS employee, if to be terminated, opportunity of hearing the said GDS employee is to be given as per Rule 4 (3) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 — This chunk pertains to an Original Application (OA No. 295 of 2015) challenging a notice for termination of a GDS employee's service, issued under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 20... — Facts : Applicant, a regular SC community candidate selected by regular selection was posted as GDS BPM on 27-8-2014 (A/3). Applicant is aggrieved by the issue of Memo, dated 7-5-2015 (A/5) by which a month's notice was given for terminating his service.

That order, dated 7-5-2015 is challenged in this OA on account of Rule 6 of EDAs (Conduct and Service) Rules, 1964 which is same of Rule 8 of 2011 Rules as Rule 6 does not confer power on Appointing Authority or any other authority superior to Appointing Authority to cancel appointment of EDA who has been appointed on regular basis, for reasons other than unsatisfactory service or for administrative reasons without giving an opportunity to show-cause. OA was admitted and the cancelling of appointment of EDA by Order, dated 7-5-2015 is kept in abeyance as an interim measure. One Shri Sethy who asked for modification of a similar Order, dated 27-5-2015 is included as A/6 in the OA.

Counter has been filed. Considering the case and counter, the issue to be decided in this case is, whether the impugned Order, dated 7-5-2015 (A/4) issued under Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 is sustainable in the eyes of law. On perusal of judgment, dated 27-1-2014 in WP (C) 1802/2012 of the High Court cited by the Applicant, it is noted that the said case that the concerned GDS was also terminated paying an amount of one month's salary instead of one month's notice as per provision of Rule 8. Hence the present case is similar to W.P. (C) No. 1802 of 2012 except a difference that the Applicant instead of forthright termination, was issued a notice of one month for termination. In both cases, the dispute is related to Rule 8. The relevant portion of the judgment in WP (C) 1802/2012 is reproduced. In that case, after examining the issue, the High Court directed the petitioner to reinstate the opposite party in his earlier post, holding that the impugned termination shall not be precluded to take a decision after affording the Applicant with reasonable show cause and hearing.