Termination of a GDS after three years requires compliance with prescribed disciplinary procedure and natural justice.

The applicant was appointed as Gramin Dak Sevak (GDS), Jahnaipur, pursuant to a notification dated 12 February 2009 and an appointment order dated 25 June 2009. Following a complaint alleging that he was second in the merit list, his engagement was terminated on 30 September 2009. The Tribunal set aside that termination on 10 December 2009, while granting liberty to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law

The applicant was thereafter reinstated, but his engagement was again terminated in April 2010 under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct & Employment) Rules, 2001. Subsequently, in view of the pending litigation, the respondents decided to adjust him against another GDS post and appointed him as GDS, Garwara, on 20 October 2010

After the applicant had served for more than twelve years, the respondents terminated his engagement by order dated 17 February 2022, stating that his appointment had been temporary and made due to exigency of service. The applicant challenged the termination as punitive, contrary to the GDS Rules, and violative of natural justice

Whether the respondents could terminate the applicant’s engagement under Rule 8(1) of the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020 after he had rendered more than twelve years of continuous service?

Whether the termination order dated 17 February 2022, issued without notice, hearing, reasons, or a disciplinary enquiry, was legally sustainable?

Whether the respondents were barred by the principle of estoppel from treating the applicant’s long-standing appointment as merely temporary after consciously appointing or adjusting him during the earlier litigation?

The Tribunal applied the GDS (Conduct & Engagement) Rules, 2020, which superseded the 2001 and 2011 Rules.

Rule 8(1) permits termination by notice of a GDS who has not rendered more than three years’ continuous service; consequently, the provision was held inapplicable to the applicant, who had served for more than twelve years.

Termination by way of compulsory discharge, removal, or dismissal as a penalty must comply with Rule 9 and the procedural safeguards under Rule 10, including notice of the proposed action, disclosure of allegations, consideration of the employee’s representation, and, in cases of removal or dismissal, a reasonable opportunity of hearing through an enquiry.

The Tribunal further applied the principles of natural justice, particularly the requirement of notice, hearing, and a reasoned order, and held that the respondents’ prior conscious decision to appoint or adjust the applicant during the litigation attracted the principle of estoppel.

The Tribunal held that Rule 8(1) could not justify the impugned termination because that provision applies only where the GDS has not completed three years of continuous service, whereas the applicant had served for over twelve years.

The respondents’ assertion that the applicant’s engagement remained temporary was rejected because they offered no explanation for allowing such an arrangement to continue for more than a decade.

The Tribunal also found that the order did not impose a formal penalty; nevertheless, the respondents could not terminate the applicant’s long-standing engagement outside the statutory framework and without complying with natural justice.

The order dated 17 February 2022 contained no reasons and was issued without providing the applicant an opportunity of hearing.

Further, having consciously appointed or adjusted the applicant in the context of the earlier litigation, the respondents could not subsequently adopt an inconsistent position to his detriment; such a course was barred by estoppel.

It directed the respondents to reinstate the applicant and extend consequential benefits in accordance with the extant rules within three months of receiving a certified copy of the order.

The associated miscellaneous applications were disposed of, and the parties were directed to bear their own costs.