UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.versusJAYAKUMAR PARIDA

                    UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.                                   A
                                    v.
                        JAYAKUMAR PARIDA

                         NOVEMBER 27, 1995

            [K. RAMASWAMY AND B.L. HANSARIA, JJ.]                             B

      Posts and Telegraph Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and
Salaries) Rules, 1964: Rule 6.

      Service-Termination without notice-Adverse material against             C
employee-F011ning basis of tem1ination orde!'-Employee not given any
opportunity-No reason given for tem1ination-Reinstatement ordered by
Tribunal-Held no inteiference was called for-But employee held not entitled
to back wages.

       An order terminating the services of the respondent, an Extra D
Departmental Branch Post Master, was passed under Rule 6 of the Posts
and Telegraph Extra Departmental Agents (Conduct and Salaries) Rules,
1964 which was based on a report submitted against the respondent that
he had produced a fal1>e income certificate at the time of appointment. The
termination order was set aside by the Tribunal on the ground that it was E
violative of the principles of natural justice because neither any reason was
given for termination nor any opportunity was given to the respondent.
Consequently the Tribunal directed reinstatement of the respondent with
all consequential benefits. Union of India preferred appeal before this
Court.
                                                                              F
      Allowing the appeal in part, this Court

      HELD : It is settled law that if any material adverse to the respon-
dent formed a foundation for termination, principles of natural justice
may necessarily require that prior opportunity of notice be given and after G
considering his reply appropriate order may be passed giving reason in
support thereof. If it is a motive for taking action, in terms of Rule 6 of
the Posts and Telegraph Extra-Departmental Agents (Conduct and
Salaries) Rules, 1964, 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 H
                                    695
    696                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R.

A opportunities before termination. So each case requires to be examined on
    its own facts. In this case 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, the order of the Tribunal setting
B   aside the termination cannot be interfered with. However, the respondent
    will not be entitled to any back wages. [697-B-E]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 11643 of
    1995.

C         From the Judgment and Order dated 24.8.94 of the Central Ad-
    ministrative Tribunal, Cuttack in O.A. No. 81/91.

         T. C. Sharma, Mrs. Anil Katiyar and C. V. Subba Rao for the
    Appellants.

D           Bharat Sangal and Sanjeev Das for the Respondents.

            The following Order of the Court was delivered :

            Delay condoned.

E           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
F   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 reinstate-
    ment of the respondent with all consequential benefits. Thus this appeal
    by special leave.
G
          Rule 6 of the Posts and Telegraph Extra-Departmental Agents (Con-
    duct 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
H             from the date of his appointment shall be liable to termination by
                            U.O.I. v. J. PARIDA                          697

         the appointing authority at any time without notice."                  A
      The question is whether the termination of the respondent is m
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      B
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, since that rule provides that such a     c
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 D
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 respon-
                                                                            E
dent is not entitled to any back-wages.

      The appeal is accordingly allowed to the above extent. No costs.

T.N.A.                                                      Appeal allowed.