IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6973 of 2011 ====================================================== Sheonath Prasad S/O Late Ram Nagina Prasad R/O Vill. And P.O.- Sahsaraon, P.S.-Bhagwanpur Haat, Distt.-Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Communication Sanchar Bhawan, New Delhi-01. 2. The Director General, Deptt. Of Post, New Delhi. 3. The Chief Post Master Central, Bihar Circle, Patna. 4. The Central Administrative Tribunal Through Registrar, Patna Bench, Patna. 5. The Post Master General, North Bihar Region, Muzaffarpur. 6. The Superintendent Of Post Offices Siwan Division, Siwan. 7. The Postal Inspector, Siwan Division, Siwan. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Anil Kr. Upadhaya, Advocate Mr. Naresh Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr Maqbool Ahmad, CGC ====================================================== 2 06-09-2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. The only point raised before us to challenge the impugned order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Patna Bench dated 24.2.2011 in O.A. No.05 of 2008, is alleged violation of clause 11 of an internal circular/ executive decision dated 12.4.1991 (part of Annexure-8). The circular dated 12.4.1991 is on the subject of grant of temporary status and regularization for casual labourers under a Patna High Court CWJC No.6973 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2011 2 scheme. Clause 11 provides that if a labourer with temporary status commits a misconduct and the same is proved in an enquiry after giving him reasonable opportunity, his services will be dispensed with. It has been highlighted that a labourer with temporary status cannot be removed from service unless he commits a misconduct which is proved in an enquiry held after affording opportunity of defence to the labourer. The impugned order passed by the authorities which was under challenge before the Tribunal is dated 10.3.2005. The same has been annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition. It shows that full opportunity was granted to the petitioner to take his defence in the matter and after considering the argument of defence and other connected papers, the order recorded the brief history of the case to highlight the omissions and commissions of the petitioner, who was supposed to be on duty as C.P. Night Guard i.e. Night Guard on contingent payment at Bhagwanpur Hat S.O. under Siwan H.O. In the night of 29/30.7.2004, a theft of big magnitude happened in the premises of the post office. The iron safe was removed after breaking cement and concrete plaster and it was broken leading to theft of Rs.500304.50 paise only. Enough lacuna was found in the defence of the petitioner and it was concluded that his defence was an afterthought and he was not Patna High Court CWJC No.6973 of 2011 (2) dt.06-09-2011 3 physically present, rather he casually visited the place in the morning when the people in general were moving around the place. The order passed against the petitioner is, however, quite innocuous and simply expresses that service of the petitioner, a C.P. Night Guard, Bhagwanpur Hat S.O., was not found satisfactory and hence, it was being dispensed with, with immediate effect. In our view, an internal circular cannot create a permanent status for a contingent paid Night Guard and the procedure adopted for dispensing with his service was quite fair after giving him reasonable opportunity. The misconduct in the given circumstances is quite apparent from the discussions made in the order contained in Annexure-4. In our view, the Tribunal rightly did not interfere in the matter. We find no merit in this writ petition. It is accordingly dismissed. sk (Shiva Kirti Singh, J) (Shivaji Pandey, J)