TERMINATION FOR APPOINTMENT IRREGULARITY REQUIRES REGULAR ENQUIRY, NOT SUMMARY DISMISSAL UNDER GDS RULES.

The applicant, Arvind Kumar Singh, began working as a substitute in the respondent department in 1999.

After reportedly completing three years of continuous service, he was "regularized" as GDS Branch Post Master (BPM), Lapkani, on December 27, 2005, via an appointment letter.

The respondents, however, did not permit him to join, leading him to file O.A. No. 93 of 2006, which directed the respondents to consider his appointment due to his prior continuous service.

His claim was rejected on October 22, 2008.

He filed O.A. No. 1187 of 2008, where the Tribunal specifically directed the respondent authority to consider his regularization and granted liberty to the respondents to hold an inquiry regarding the alleged forged signature on the December 27, 2005, appointment order.

Following this, the PMG, Gorakhpur Region, issued an order dated February 18, 2009, directing his appointment, and he joined service on March 23, 2009.

He was later transferred to GDS BPM, Lapkani, on June 17, 2009, and completed requisite training.

On February 10, 2011, respondent No. 5 issued a show-cause notice proposing cancellation of his appointment and transfer orders, alleging irregularities based on vigilance findings.

The applicant filed the present O.A. challenging this notice.

During the O.A.'s pendency, respondent No. 4 issued a termination order dated November 5, 2020, based on the 2011 notice, without issuing a fresh show-cause notice or affording a hearing.

The termination order was passed under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, despite the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, having been implemented on February 14, 2020.

Whether the show-cause notice dated February 10, 2011, and the termination order dated November 5, 2020, are legal and valid given the circumstances of the applicant’s appointment and prolonged service?

Whether the applicant's service could be terminated without a regular inquiry despite the allegation of a forged appointment document where such an inquiry was impliedly directed by a previous Tribunal order?

Whether the termination order dated November 5, 2020, is valid when it was issued under the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, which had been superseded by the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020?

The Tribunal referred to Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001, concerning termination of engagement, and Rule 8 of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, for termination within three years of continuous service.

It also cited Rule 4(3)(c) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2001, which allows a superior authority to make orders after giving an opportunity of being heard, in case of illegalities or material irregularities.

The Tribunal heavily relied on its prior judgment in O.A. No. 1465 of 2016 (confirmed by the Hon’ble High Court in Writ Petition No. 49864 of 2017), which categorized termination cases: (a) pre-recruitment irregularity (requiring show-cause notice under Rule 4(3)(c)), (b) misconduct (requiring disciplinary proceedings), and (c) unsatisfactory service or administrative reasons within three years (allowing Rule 8(2) application).

This precedent highlighted that non-compliance with procedure in recruitment falls under pre-recruitment irregularity, necessitating a show-cause notice, and that terminations connected with conduct require a regular departmental inquiry, as per the principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India.

The Supreme Court's mandate that constitutional requirements for appointment cannot be bypassed was also noted.

The Tribunal found that the termination order dated November 5, 2020, was issued under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2011, despite the GDS (Conduct and Engagement) Rules, 2020, being in force at that time, rendering the invocation of the old rules problematic.

Crucially, the core allegation against the applicant was obtaining appointment through a forged document, which constitutes misconduct.

Citing its own judgment in O.A. No. 1465 of 2016, the Tribunal reiterated that where termination arises from misconduct (such as production of false documents), disciplinary proceedings, including a proper inquiry, are mandatory, irrespective of the length of service.

The previous O.A. No. 1187 of 2008 had explicitly granted liberty to the respondents to "hold an enquiry" regarding the alleged forged signature on the 2005 appointment order.

The Tribunal interpreted this as requiring a "regular enquiry" to determine the authenticity of the document by examining and cross-examining the concerned authority.

The respondents' claim of having conducted an inquiry was deemed insufficient as it was not a regular inquiry as contemplated by the rules or CCS (CCA) Rules.

The termination without such a regular inquiry, especially after the applicant had served for over 11 years, violated principles of natural justice and Article 311(2) of the Constitution.

The Tribunal concluded that both the show-cause notice dated February 10, 2011, and the termination order dated November 5, 2020, are liable to be set aside.

Therefore, they are hereby quashed.

The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant without back wages, with this exercise to be completed within three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order.

However, liberty is reserved to the respondents to conduct a fresh, regular inquiry in accordance with applicable rules, if so advised.