1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.70 OF 2009 Union of India & Ors. .. Petitioners Vs. Pravin D. Detke .. Respondent WITH WRIT PETITION NO.71 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.72 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.105 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.106 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.107 OF 2009 WITH WRIT PETITION NO.108 OF 2009 Ms.Hina P. Shah for the petitioner Mr.V.M. Tayade for the respondents 2 CORAM : J. N. Patel & Smt. Mridula Bhatkar, JJ DATE : July 14, 2009 P.C. : 1. All these seven Writ Petitions involve common question of law and facts and, as such, we propose to dispose of them by this common order. 2. The petitioner Union of India has filed these writ petitions challenging the order passed by the Tribunal i.e. Central Administrative Tribunal in Original Application Nos.411 of 2007, 629 of 2007, 630 of 2007, 631 of 2007, 632 of 2007, 633 of 2007 and 634 of 2007. It is not disputed that the petitioner has engaged the respondents in service and they were working as Civilians in Group C and D for their Unit Run Canteen and they all were in the service ranging from 2 years to 23 years. The petitioner abruptly terminated the services of these respondents by issuing the termination order dated 24/10/00. Being aggrieved with the said termination, the respondents i.e. the original applicants approached the Central Government Industrial Tribunal. In between the petitioner approached the Honourable High Court and on the ground of Jurisdiction, the matter was transferred to Central Administrative Tribunal through General Labour Union by order in Writ Petition No.812 of 2007 decided on 11.6.07. 3. The respondents through their Secretary of General Labour Union filed 3 Original Applications before Central Administrative Tribunal and all these Original Applications were allowed and disposed of by common order dated 20.06.208 and so being aggrieved with this order the petitioner filed the present Writ Petitions. 4. It is contended by the petitioners that the Tribunal has erred in holding that no notices were given and the services of the respondents were terminated without following any procedure established by law. It is also contended that the respondents are not coming under the purview of public employment and they cannot be treated at par with government employees, the services of the petitioners were not regularized and the order passed by the petitioners was not illegal. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal has erred in passing the order for payment of full back wages and cost of Rs.10,000/- each. It is submitted that by passing this order, the Tribunal has overlooked the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the case of Hindustan Motors Ltd. Vs. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Another reported in 2002 Supreme Court Cases (L&S) 818 and also in the case of Executive Engineer, Water Services Div. Haryana vs. Kartar Singh reported in Services Law Reporter 2009(3) 602. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that the order of termination was arbitrary and the reason for the termination of all the applicants were in stereotyped and monotonous manner, a specimen of which is reproduced below: 4 1. Please refer to para 5 of your appointment letter dated 01.11.1987. “ 2. It has been observed that your performance has not been upto the mark. Your job efficiency has been sub-optional. 3. In terms of para 5 of your appointment letter, this letter may please be treated as termination notice for termination of your service. 4. You are requested to cease performing duties on 27 Oct. 2000. 5. Please collect one month's salary in lieu of notice. Cheque No.QRH-422439 dated 24 Oct. 2000 drawn on PNB for Three Thousand One Hundred Fourteen Only is enclosed herewith as one month salary in lieu of notice.” This is per se a case of non-application of mind. 6. Though the case of the petitioners before the Tribunal was simplicitor termination as per their terms and conditions of the appointment, the Tribunal has held that the termination considering the grounds of termination was punitive in nature and violative of the principles of natural Justice and legitimate expectations. The Tribunal has therefore, rightly held that the present petitioners ought to have conducted proper departmental 5 inquiry and the present respondents should have been given an opportunity to put up their case. The reasoning given by the Tribunal while setting aside the order of termination is based on sound and legal principles and so the service of the termination of the respondents is against the principles of service jurisprudence and it is legally quashed and set aside. All the respondents were ordered to be reinstated with full back wages except one respondent who died during the pendency of the matter. 7. It is well settled by the catena of decisions of the Supreme Court that if the services of any civil servant or a person holding Civil post including probationers, temporary employees of ad hoc employees are terminated on the ground of misconduct (misconduct being foundation of such termination as can be seen from the order of termination in these cases) without holding an inquiry envisaged under Article 311(2) of the Constitution, such termination orders though may appear innocuous, are liable to be quashed and set aside by the Tribunal. A civil servant or a person holding a civil post cannot be denied the protection provided under Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. 8. It is nobody s case nor any evidence to show that the respondents during ’ the period when they were out of services were gainfully employed and therefore, in the given facts and circumstances, the order passed by the Tribunal granting their reinstatement with full back wages is justified. The Tribunal has awarded the cost of Rs.10,000/- for each respondent and this is 6 also one of the grounds taken by the petitioner. 9. Considering the nature of the litigation and the stand taken by the employer, the order passed by the Tribunal awarding cost of Rs.10,000/- for each employee appears to be just and fair. We do not find any ground to interfere in the order passed by Central Administrative Tribunal. Petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs. ( J. N. Patel, J) (Smt.Mridula Bhatkar, J)