Allahabad High Court
Union Of India And 4 Ors. vs Soneshwar Singh And 2 Ors. on 1 September, 2016
Bench: Dilip Gupta, Manoj Kumar Gupta
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 39
Case :- WRIT - A No. - 39737 of 2016
Petitioner :- Union Of India And 4 Ors.
Respondent :- Soneshwar Singh And 2 Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Dhirendra Kumar Dwivedi
Counsel for Respondent :- Manoj Upadhyay
Hon'ble Dilip Gupta,J.
Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.
This petition seeks the quashing of the order dated 3 November 2015 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad ( hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal') by which as an interim measure, a direction has been issued to the petitioners not to give effect to the order dated 8 October 2015, that seeks to cancel the appointment of respondent No. 1 as GDS BPM with immediate effect for the reason that major irregularities had been detected in the selections and, accordingly, the services have been terminated.
It transpires from the record of the writ petition that pursuant to a notification issued on 11 April 2013 for filling the vacant post of GDS BPM, appointment orders were issued. However, complaints were received and the CBI also raided and arrested the then Superintendent of Post Offices, Deoria Division, Deoria. A Review Committee was constituted by the Post Master General, Gorakhpur Region Gorakhpur consisting of the Post Master General and certain other senior officers. The Review Committee found major irregularities in the appointment and, accordingly, the competent authority ordered for cancellation of the appointments.
The Tribunal while passing the interim order dated 3 November 2015 found some force in the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant before the Tribunal that the respondents before the Tribunal did not have any authority to issue the termination orders once the appointments had been made after following due procedure. The Tribunal also found that the termination orders had been issued without compliance of the principles of natural justice.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that once the appointment of the GDS BPM had been cancelled on account of major irregularities in the selection, an interim order staying the order cancelling the appointment and termination of the services was not required to be passed more particularly when it results in finally allowing the application at the interim stage.
Sri Manoj Upadhyay learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1 has stated that it may not be necessary to file a counter affidavit and the petition can be disposed of at this stage. It is his submission that there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as the order impugned before the Tribunal was passed in complete violation of the principles of natural justice and when the due procedure had been followed in making the selections.
We have considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties.
We need not dwell on the merits of the order impugned before the Tribunal, as that would prejudice the case of either of the parties before the Tribunal. The Court is satisfied with the submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Tribunal was not justified in staying the operation of the order that cancelled the appointment of the applicant as also termination of his services as an interim measure, as it results in allowing the application at the interim stage. It is for this reason that we are inclined to set-aside that part of the order dated 3 November 2015 that directs the respondents not to give effect to the impugned order dated 8 October 2015 and to allow the applicant to continue on the post he was working before the impugned order was passed.
We accordingly set-aside the aforesaid directions contained in the interim order dated 3 November 2015. However, as the counter affidavit has already been filed before the Tribunal and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No. 1 has stated that the rejoinder affidavit will be filed within two weeks from today, we expect the Tribunal to take a final decision in the matter as expeditiously as is possible.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above.
(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.) (Dilip Gupta, J.)
Order Date :- 1.9.2016
AM/-
