A GDS engagement cannot be cancelled on review grounds without the hearing required by Rule 4(3).

The applicants were engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmasters (GDSBPMs) and joined their respective posts.

The Department later reviewed their engagements, alleging that the then Superintendent of Post Offices had proceeded contrary to the Screening Committee’s recommendations.

Their engagements were cancelled in February 2017; a subsequent communication corrected the Rules cited as the basis for Priyesh Kumar’s termination.

The applicants challenged the cancellation orders, contending that they had not been given a prior opportunity to respond.

They also relied on the later decision to drop disciplinary proceedings against the officer who had made the engagements.

1. Whether the Department could cancel the applicants’ engagements on grounds of alleged irregularity by the Recruiting Authority without first providing the applicants an effective opportunity to be heard under Rule 4(3) of the 2011 Rules.

2. Whether the later dropping of disciplinary proceedings against the officer who made the engagements established their validity, or was relevant to the Department’s reconsideration.

Rule 4(3) of the Department of Posts, Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 empowers a superior authority to review an engagement where the Recruiting Authority has acted outside its jurisdiction, failed to exercise jurisdiction, or acted illegally or with material irregularity; before passing an adverse order, the affected person must be given an opportunity of being heard.

Rule 8(2) permits termination in specified circumstances, including termination forthwith upon payment of the prescribed amount in lieu of notice, but does not displace the hearing safeguard applicable to a review under Rule 4(3).

The Tribunal also applied the principle in Union of India v. Jayakumar Parida, (1996) 1 SCC 441, that where adverse material forms the foundation of termination, natural justice may require prior notice and an opportunity to answer it.

The Tribunal found that the cancellations were based on alleged irregularities in the original selection process, but the record did not show that either applicant had been given notice of the proposed adverse action or a meaningful opportunity to respond before the decisions were made.

Their post-termination representations did not satisfy Rule 4(3)’s requirement of a prior hearing; reliance on Rule 8 did not cure that defect where the substance of the action was a review of the engagements for alleged irregularity.

The Tribunal did not determine whether the engagements were substantively valid.

It held that the officer’s exoneration did not automatically validate them, but that the decision to drop disciplinary proceedings was relevant and had to be considered alongside the recruitment records and any differential treatment of comparable appointees.

It directed the respondents to reconsider both engagements afresh, disclose the material relied upon, provide a reasonable opportunity to make representations, consider the relevant recruitment records and the 2021 decision dropping proceedings against the officer, and issue reasoned orders within three months.

The applicants’ engagement is to be restored subject to the outcome of that reconsideration; back wages and other monetary benefits are to be determined in accordance with law and the fresh decision.