Rule 4(3)(c) permits review and cancellation of pre-recruitment irregular GDS engagements after hearing.

The applicant, possessing a High School qualification, applied for and was engaged as Gramin Dak Sevak Branch Postmaster at Asharfabad pursuant to a notification dated 6 February 2013. He joined on 19 July 2013 and continued in service.

His engagement was initially terminated on 8 October 2015 under Rule 8(2) of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011. The Tribunal quashed that termination for non-compliance with the prescribed procedure, and the Allahabad High Court affirmed the decision while leaving it open to the Department to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Rules.

After reinstatement, the respondents issued a show-cause notice dated 6 December 2019 under Rule 4(3)(c), alleging serious irregularities in the original engagement process.

The allegations included consideration of only nine out of 68 applicants, alteration of the vacancy from Open Category to the PH category, non-preparation of the required merit panel, disregard of more meritorious candidates, issuance of a backdated engagement order despite a restraining direction, and non-completion of pre-engagement formalities.

The applicant submitted his reply, but the competent authority cancelled his engagement by order dated 18 March 2020.

Whether the respondents could review and cancel the applicant’s engagement under Rule 4(3)(c) of the 2011 Rules on the ground of pre-recruitment irregularities, notwithstanding the applicant’s length of service.

Whether cancellation of the engagement required a regular departmental inquiry under the disciplinary provisions, rather than action under Rule 4(3)(c).

Whether the impugned order was invalid for want of limitation, denial of reasonable opportunity, or non-consideration of the applicant’s reply.

The Tribunal applied Rule 4(3)(c) of the Gramin Dak Sevaks (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which empowers the superior/reviewing authority to examine an engagement suffering from irregularities and, after giving the incumbent an opportunity of being heard, pass an appropriate order; the Rule prescribes no limitation period for such review.

Rule 8(2) was treated as applicable primarily to termination within the prescribed period for unsatisfactory work or post-engagement administrative reasons, while disciplinary proceedings under the relevant provisions, including Rule 10, apply where the action is founded on post-engagement misconduct.

The Tribunal relied on the principles stated in the earlier decision in O.A. No. 1443/2015 and the coordinate Bench decision in O.A. No. 494/2020, holding that pre-recruitment irregularities may be corrected under Rule 4(3)(c) after notice and hearing, and that cancellation on that basis is not a punishment requiring a regular departmental inquiry.

It also referred to P.V. Madhavan Nambiar v. D.V. Radhakrishnan and related decisions for distinguishing pre-appointment irregularities from post-appointment administrative grounds or misconduct.

The Tribunal held that the defects identified by the respondents went to the root of the selection and engagement process, rather than constituting misconduct committed by the applicant after appointment.

Only nine of 68 applicants had been included in the comparative chart; the vacancy originally notified as Open Category was subsequently treated as a PH vacancy; more meritorious candidates were allegedly bypassed; and the engagement order was issued in disregard of a prior restraint and without completion of mandatory formalities.

These matters were therefore characterised as pre-recruitment irregularities attracting Rule 4(3)(c), not Rule 8(2) or the disciplinary procedure.

The applicant had been given a detailed show-cause notice and an opportunity to submit his reply, which the competent authority considered before passing the cancellation order.

The Tribunal further held that Rule 4(3)(c) contains no limitation period and that continued service, by itself, could not validate an engagement that was irregular from inception.

Following the coordinate Bench’s decision on the same issue, it found no procedural or legal infirmity in the impugned order.

The Original Application challenging the order dated 18 March 2020 was dismissed.

Any interim order was vacated, pending miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and no order as to costs was made.