CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.15059 OF 2005 Against the order dated 29.07.2994 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna in O.A. No. 783 of 2000 1. THE UNION OF INDIA THRU THE SECRETARY, GOVERNMANET OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF COMMUNICATION, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, NEW DELHI- CUM-THE DIRECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF POSTS, INDIA, NEW DELHI-110001 2. THE CHIEF POSTMASTER GENERAL, BIHAR CIRCLE, PATNA. 3. SUPERINTENDENT OF POST OFFICES BHAGALPUR DIVISION, BHAGALPUR. 4. THE SUB DIVISIONAL INSPECTOR (POSTAL) NORTH SUB DIVISION, NAUGACHHIA, P.S. NAUGACHHIA, DISTRICT, BHAGALPUR………………………………………………………. (PETITIONERS) Versus 1. VINEET KUMKAR JHA SON OF YOSHODHAR JHA, R/O VILLAGE AND P.O. CHAKRAMANI, VIA, NARAYANPUR, DISTT-BHAGALPUR. 2. THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, PATNA BENCH, PATNA THRU ITS REGISTRAR……………………………………………(RESPONDENTS) ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Binay Kumar Pandey, CGC. For The Respondent :Mr. Sanjiv Krishna Bariar, Advocate P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA Shiva Kirti Singh & Birendra Prasad Verma, J.J Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the order under challenge dated 29.07.2004 whereby the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench, Patna has allowed O.A. No. 783 of 2000 preferred by Respondent No.1, Vineet Kumar Jha. 2. On hearing the parties, it is found that admittedly the appointment of the Respondent No.1 as EDBPM of Chakrami EDBO in the district of Bhagalpur was found to be irregular at a later stage on account of review by the Director of Postal Service, Patna as indicated in paragraph-6 of the learned Tribunal’s order. It is not in dispute that no notice or opportunity to - 2 - show-cause was ever given to the concerned employee, Respondent No.1 before terminating his service professedly in exercise of power under Rule 6 (a) of P&T EDA’s (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance upon the said Rule quoted in paragraph-9 of the writ petition. No doubt, that Rule provided that before completion of three years continuous service it is open for the employer as well as the employee to terminate the appointment by a notice in writing. The period of such notice is required to be one month. There is further provision that the requirement of notice can be waived by the employer but in that event the employee shall be entitled to claim a sum equal to the amount of his basic allowances plus D.A. for the period of notice at the prevailing rate. 4. From the averments in paragraph-10 of the writ petition, it transpires that the competent authority has issued a DGPT Endorsement No. 10/82 containing a clarification that in future while terminating the service of ED agents, memo of reasons should be indicated in the order to ensure that the Rule has been followed. A perusal of the order of termination contained in Annexure-2 shows that there is reference to the aforesaid Rule and it has been mentioned in the order that the service shall stand terminated w.e.f. the date of expiry of a period of one month from the date on which the notice is served. Prima facie, the requirement of Rule-6 (a) of P&T EDA’s (Conduct & Service) Rules, 1964 have been followed but that is not sufficient when admittedly the termination of appointment is not simplicitor which alone in our view, can be subject matter of termination under such Rule. In the present case, admittedly a higher authority - 3 - sought to review the appointment on the ground that some information or papers were submitted beyond the time permissible. When admittedly an enquiry of this sort was being made by the authority which was likely to affect the rights of the employee and ultimately it has affected him adversely, the rule of audi alteram partem was necessary to be followed. Now, it is well established that such rules of natural justice are part of fair treatment and thus a part of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Hence, in the facts of the case, we find no good reason to interfere with the order of Tribunal. This writ petition is dismissed. 5. There shall be no order as to cost. Patna High Court The 12th July, 2010 AFR/Md. Perwez Alam ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J. ) (Birendra Prasad Verma,J.)