Termination for alleged forgery requires a regular departmental inquiry with due process.

Manvendra Singh (applicant) was appointed as G.D.S. Branch Post Master, Belkunda, District Deoria, via appointment letter dated December 28, 2005.

Despite the appointment, he was not permitted to join, leading him to file OA No. 92 of 2006, which was decided on July 2, 2008, directing respondents to consider his claim.

His claim was rejected on October 22, 2008, prompting OA No. 1188 of 2008.

Pursuant to the tribunal's direction in OA No. 1188 of 2008, the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region, on February 18, 2009, directed his appointment.

Consequently, he was formally appointed as G.D.S. Mail Deliverer/Carrier, Pachrukha Branch Office, Deoria, on March 21, 2009, and joined service on March 23, 2009.

He was later transferred to Lapkani (Gauri Bazar) on the same post and joined on June 17, 2009.

Nine years later, a show cause notice dated February 10, 2011, was issued, proposing the cancellation of his appointment and transfer.

During the pendency of the present OA, respondent no. 4 issued a termination order dated November 5, 2020, based on the 2011 show cause notice, without a fresh notice or hearing.

The respondents contended that the appointment was irregular, made without following due recruitment procedure, and did not involve his regularization.

Vigilance officers detected irregularities in his appointment and transfer, leading to the show cause notice and subsequent termination.

The termination order invoked Rule 8(1) of the G.D.S. (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011.

1. Whether the show cause notice dated February 10, 2011, and the termination order dated November 5, 2020, were issued in violation of administrative law principles, particularly those related to undue delay and natural justice?

2. Whether the applicant's service/engagement could be terminated under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, without a regular enquiry, especially when allegations of obtaining appointment through a forged document were raised?

3. Whether the termination order dated November 5, 2020, passed during the pendency of the Original Application, was hit by Section 19(4) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985?

The Tribunal primarily applied Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011 and (2001) concerning termination of engagement for those with less than three years of continuous service.

Rule 4(3)(c) of GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001, which allows superior authorities to make orders after giving an opportunity of being heard if jurisdictional illegality or material irregularity is found.

Principles of natural justice, which mandate affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing before an adverse order is passed.

Prior decision in OA No. 1465 of 2016, which distinguished between pre-recruitment irregularities (requiring show cause under Rule 4(3)(c)) and post-recruitment unsatisfactory service or administrative reasons (allowing termination under Rule 8(2)).

Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India, emphasizing that punitive termination with civil consequences requires a proper enquiry.

The court noted that the show cause notice dated February 10, 2011, was issued proposing cancellation of appointment, but the termination order dated November 5, 2020, was passed over nine years later, without a fresh show cause notice or opportunity for the applicant to be heard, thus violating natural justice.

The respondents’ claim that a regular departmental enquiry was not required because the applicant's services were never regularized was found to be insufficient, particularly as the termination order was punitive in nature and carried civil consequences.

The court highlighted that its previous order in OA No. 1188 of 2008 had granted liberty to the respondents to conduct an enquiry into allegations of forged signatures on the appointment order dated December 28, 2005, implicitly referring to a "regular enquiry".

The termination order invoked Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which was applicable for termination within three years of engagement.

The applicant had completed more than 11 years of service, making the invocation of Rule 8(1) misconceived.

The court further observed that the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, had been superseded by the 2020 Rules at the time of termination, casting doubt on the legal basis for the order itself.

The judgment in OA No. 1465 of 2016, upheld by the High Court, established that pre-recruitment irregularities (like the alleged forged document) should be addressed under Rule 4(3)(c) with a show cause notice and opportunity of hearing, or through a regular inquiry if misconduct is alleged.

Obtaining appointment through a forged document constitutes misconduct under Rule 9 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, necessitating a regular inquiry for its determination and imposition of punishment.

The impugned show cause notice dated February 10, 2011, and the termination order dated November 5, 2020, are quashed.

The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant without back wages, with the exercise to be completed within three months.

Liberty is reserved to the respondents to conduct a regular enquiry in accordance with the applicable Rules, if so advised.