http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2  

PETITIONER: UNION OF INDIA & ORS.

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: JAYAKUMAR PARIDA

DATE OF JUDGMENT27/11/1995

BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. BENCH: RAMASWAMY, K. HANSARIA B.L. (J)

CITATION:  1996 SCC  (1) 441        JT 1995 (9)   615  1995 SCALE  (7)366

ACT:

HEADNOTE:

JUDGMENT:                          O R D E R      Delay condoned.      Leave granted.      The respondent  was appointed  on March  31, 1989 as an Extra-Departmental Branch  Post Master and he had joined the post on  May 16,  1989. His  appointment was  terminated  on February 25,  1991. He filed O.A.No.81/91 in CAT at Cuttack. The Tribunal  by order  dated August  24, 1994 set aside the order of  termination on  the ground that it did not contain any reason  nor any  opportunity is given to the respondent. Therefore,  it   was  violative  of  principles  of  natural justice.  Accordingly,  it  directed  reinstatement  of  the respondent with all consequential benefits. Thus this appeal by special leave.      Rule 6  of the  Posts and  Telegraph Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and Salaries) Rules, 1964 provides that:      "6. Termination of Services: The service      of  an  employee  who  has  not  already      rendered   more    than   three    years      continuous service  from the date of his      appointment   shall    be   liable    to      termination by  the appointing authority      at any time without notice." The question is whether the termination of the respondent is in  accordance  with  this  rule.  There  appears  to  be  a complaint laid against the respondent that he had produced a false income  certificate before  seeking appointment.  That was taken  into account  while making the appointment of the respondent as  Extra-Departmental Branch  Post Master. It is settled law  that if  any material adverse to the respondent formed a  foundation for  termination, principles of natural justice may  necessarily require  that prior  opportunity of notice be  given and after considering his reply appropriate order may be passed giving reasons in support thereof. If it is only  a motive  for taking  action, in  terms of  Rule 6,

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2  

since that  rule provides  that such  a termination could be made within  three years  without any notice, there would be no obligation  on the  part of  the appellant  to issue  any notice and to give opportunities before termination. So each case requires to be examined on its own facts.      It was  admitted on  behalf of  the appellants  in  the counter affidavit  filed before the Tribunal that the action was initiated on the basis of a report submitted against the respondent that he had produced false income certificate. In other words,  it formed  a foundation  and not  a motive for taking the  impugned  action.  Accordingly,  we  decline  to interfere with  the order  of the Tribunal setting aside the termination. However,  the respondent is not entitled to any backwages.      The appeal  is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.