Union of India & Ors Vs. Jayakumar Parida
 INSC 741 (27
K.Ramaswamy, K.Hansaria B.L. (J)
1996 SCC (1) 441 JT 1995 (9) 615 1995 SCALE (7)366
O R D
respondent was appointed on March 31, 1989
as an Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master and he had joined the post on May 16, 1989. His appointment was terminated on February 25, 1991. He filed O.A.No.81/91 in CAT at Cuttack.
Tribunal by order dated August
24, 1994 set aside the
order of termination on the ground that it did not contain any reason nor any
opportunity is given to the respondent.
it was violative of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, it directed
reinstatement of the respondent with all consequential benefits. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
of the Posts and Telegraph Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Salaries)
Rules, 1964 provides that:
Termination of Services: The service of an employee who has not already rendered
more than three years continuous service from the date of his appointment shall
be liable to termination by the appointing authority at any time without
notice." The question is whether the termination of the respondent is in
accordance with this rule. There appears to be a complaint laid against the
respondent that he had produced a false income certificate before seeking
appointment. That was taken into account while making the appointment of the
respondent as Extra-Departmental Branch Post Master. It is settled law that if
any material adverse to the respondent formed a foundation for termination,
principles of natural justice may necessarily require that prior opportunity of
notice be given and after considering his reply appropriate order may be passed
giving reasons in support thereof. If it is only a motive for taking action, in
terms of Rule 6, since that rule provides that such a termination could be made
within three years without any notice, there would be no obligation on the part
of the appellant to issue any notice and to give opportunities before
termination. So each case requires to be examined on its own facts.
admitted on behalf of the appellants in the counter affidavit filed before the
Tribunal that the action was initiated on the basis of a report submitted
against the respondent that he had produced false income certificate. In other
words, it formed a foundation and not a motive for taking the impugned action.
Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the order of the Tribunal setting
aside the termination. However, the respondent is not entitled to any back wages.
appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent.