Termination of service by an authority other than the appointing authority is jurisdictionally defective and void.

The applicant was appointed as a Telephone Attendant-cum-Dak Courier (TADK) / Bungalow Peon on 27.11.2006 by the Assistant Personnel Officer on behalf of the General Manager, North Central Railway

He was attached to Respondent No. 4, a Deputy Chief Engineer, and was granted Temporary Status effective 03.03.2008

The applicant alleged exploitation by Respondent No. 4, asserting he was forced to surrender a portion of his salary

On 13.09.2011, Respondent No. 4 issued an order terminating the applicant’s services on grounds of unsatisfactory conduct

This termination occurred shortly before a scheduled screening for regularization on 12.10.2011, in which the applicant was listed as an eligible candidate

The applicant challenged the termination as being passed by an authority lacking jurisdiction and without a proper inquiry

1. Whether the termination order dated 13.09.2011 was passed by the competent authority with the requisite jurisdiction.

2. Whether the termination of a TADK’s services on the grounds of conduct or unsatisfactory performance requires a regular inquiry.

3. Whether the applicant is entitled to participate in the screening process for regularization following the setting aside of the termination order.

The court applied the principle that a termination order must be passed by the authority that appointed the employee or an authority superior to it

It further relied on the settled legal position that if the services of a TADK are to be terminated based on specific allegations of misconduct or conduct, a regular inquiry is mandatory

The Tribunal also noted RBE No. 102/2020 (dated 01.12.2020) regarding the management of TADKs, which reinforces procedural safeguards

The Tribunal observed that while the General Manager was the competent authority who issued the appointment, the termination order was signed and issued by Respondent No. 4 (the officer to whom the applicant was attached)

The Tribunal found that Respondent No. 4 was not the competent authority to terminate the applicant’s services and had exceeded his jurisdiction

Even if the conduct was unsatisfactory, Respondent No. 4 ought to have reported the matter to the General Manager for action rather than passing the order himself

Furthermore, the Tribunal held that terminating a TADK based on conduct without a regular inquiry is illegal

Since the applicant remained in service due to an interim protection order, the Tribunal determined he should be treated as having never been terminated

It held that the order was void for lack of jurisdiction and procedural fairness

The Tribunal directed the respondents to treat the applicant as continuing in service and to take necessary steps for the regularization of his services through a screening process in accordance with the rules within four months

No costs were awarded