A provisional GDS employee cannot be terminated after prolonged service without notice and due process.

The applicant was initially engaged as a part-time Safaiwala at Jhargrarpar Sub-Office in 2007.

In 2014, following the “put-off duty” of Smt. Lakshmi Mahanta, GDS Packer, he was provisionally appointed as GDS Packer against the vacancy and joined on 3 May 2014.

His appointment was approved by the Superintendent of Post Offices, Dhubri Division, and he continued in the post for several years without any recorded adverse service history.

On 26 July 2023, the Inspector of Post Offices, Dhubri, issued an order terminating the applicant’s engagement as GDS Packer with immediate effect.

The order was issued without prior notice, show-cause notice, disciplinary inquiry, or reasons.

The applicant contended that Smt. Lakshmi Mahanta had not been reinstated and that the disciplinary proceedings against her had not been concluded.

The respondents maintained that the applicant’s engagement was purely temporary and constituted a stop-gap arrangement without regular selection.

They argued that the Inspector of Posts, being the appointing and disciplinary authority for GDS employees, was competent to terminate the engagement.

The Tribunal had earlier stayed the operation of the termination order on 17 August 2023.

Whether the applicant’s engagement as GDS Packer could be terminated summarily, after several years of continuous service, without prior notice, hearing, or compliance with the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001.

Whether the respondents could terminate the applicant’s stop-gap appointment when the original incumbent had not been shown to have been reinstated and the disciplinary proceedings against her had not been finalized.

Whether the impugned termination order, being cryptic and unsupported by reasons, was arbitrary and disproportionate in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

The Tribunal applied the GDS (Conduct and Employment) Rules, 2001, particularly the procedural protection against termination without notice after an employee has rendered continuous service for more than three years.

It relied on the principles of natural justice, including the requirement of notice and an opportunity of hearing before termination of an employee who has acquired a protectable service interest.

The Tribunal further applied Article 14 of the Constitution, under which arbitrary and disproportionate State action is impermissible, relying on E.P. Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1974) 4 SCC 3.

It also relied on Union of India v. Bikash Kuanar, (2006) 8 SCC 192, concerning the impermissibility of administrative cancellation of an appointment after civil rights have accrued, and on Chandra Sekhar Chaubey v. Union of India, as well as the principles affirmed in State of Haryana v. Piara Singh, (1992) 4 SCC 118, and Manish Gupta v. President, Jan Bhagidari Samiti, SLP (C) No. 12946 of 2017, that a temporary or stop-gap employee should not be replaced by another employee through an arbitrary process and that long continuous service cannot be terminated without following prescribed procedure.

The Tribunal held that, notwithstanding the respondents’ characterization of the applicant’s engagement as temporary, he had served continuously as GDS Packer from 2014 and the arrangement had been approved by the Superintendent of Post Offices, the higher authority.

His prolonged service brought the procedural safeguards under the GDS Rules and principles of natural justice into operation.

The termination order was issued after several years of service without notice, hearing, inquiry, or reasons, and was therefore procedurally defective and arbitrary.

The Tribunal also noted that the respondents had not established that Smt. Lakshmi Mahanta had been reinstated or that the contingency justifying the applicant’s displacement had occurred.

In light of the applicant’s continuous service, the absence of any adverse finding, and the cryptic nature of the order, immediate termination was found disproportionate and unsustainable.

It directed the respondents to permit the applicant to continue as GDS Packer until and unless the regularly appointed incumbent joins the post.

The application was accordingly disposed of, with no order as to costs; pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.