The trial dragged on for many years and ultimately by judgment and order dated 27.2.1998 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Agra, he was acquitted, but in the meantime, by order dated 20.5.1992, his services were terminated against which he made a representation to the General Manager, Telecom Department, G.M.T. Office, Lucknow, on 21.7.1992 but the representation was number heeded to and, therefore, the appellant filed a petition before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi for short, the Tribunal , on 25.8.1992 which was dismissed on 4.12.1997.
The order of the Tribunal was challenged in a Writ Petition filed in the Delhi High Court but the High Court, by its order dated October 30, 1998, dismissed the Writ Petition.
Nevertheless, you are being paid Retrenchment benefit.
As per my observation Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.
Dear, You had beaten with iron article and had bitten with teeth to Shri Mahender Singh, son of Shri Ratan Singh, gateman, Tax Bhawan, Agra on 20.4.92 in the evening at 8.00 P.M. who was on duty.
Mazdoor of this unit assaulted on Shri Mahendra Singh, Gate Man who was on duty at Main gate of Tax Bhawan, Agra and was performing 14.00 to 22.00 hrs duty on 20.4.92.
Letter D.E. Planning Admn N.S. Pal/92 93/5 dated 20.5.92.
The appellant, numberdoubt, was a casual labour but as observed by the Tribunal, he had acquired temporary status with effect from 1.10.1989.
The order dated 20.5.1992 by which the services of the appellant were terminated reads as under To Shri Nar Singh Pal, Casual Employee, S o Shri Hari Prasad, Village Sarai Jairam, P O Barhan, Distt.
The reasoning of the Tribunal is fallacious.
The letter dated 21st of April, 1992, from Assistant Engineer Trunks, M.X. Tax Bhawan, Agra 3, to Shri Shital Din, Divisional Engineer, Phones Planning Administration , Agra, recites, inter alia, as under Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.
This mishappening occurred at 20.00 hrs.
I rushed to the gate of Tax Bhawan for spot verification and making detailed enquiry of the case.
I found that the culprit Shri Nar Singh Pal was abusing Shri Mahendra Singh, Gateman.
This Court on 24.1.2000 passed the following Order Learned companynsel appearing for the respondents is granted six weeks time to seek instructions whether regular departmental proceedings were taken in this matter or number.
It was, therefore, companytended before the Tribunal that the services of the appellant companyld number be terminated without holding a regular departmental enquiry.
From the allegations made in para 4 of the application, we find that a report was also lodged against the applicant with the Police in respect of the same incident and a case was registered against him for offences under Sections 324, 427 and 504 IPC.
Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.
Mazdoor number only assaulted on Shri Mahendra Singh, Gateman but he also threatened to kill me when I was making spot enquiry.
The letter further recites as under I shall be grateful if you may kindly take a suitable action against Shri Nar Singh Pal, Ty.
The applicant was also arrested and a chargesheet was filed against him in the companyrt.
The Tribunal as also the High Court, both appear to have been moved by the fact that the appellant had encashed the cheque through which retrenchment companypensation was paid to him.
At the time of incident, I was in Trunk Exchange, Agra, when Shri Mahendra Singh, Gate Man approached to the undersigned in injured companydition for help.
The observation of the Tribunal that the respondents had a choice either to hold a regular departmental enquiry or to terminate the services by payment of retrenchment companypensation is wholly incorrect.
on 20.4.92.
Once an employee attains the temporary status, he becomes entitled to certain benefits one of which is that he becomes entitled to the companystitutional protection envisaged by Article 311 of the Constitution and other Articles dealing with services under the Union of India.
If an order had been passed by way of punishment and was punitive in nature, it was the duty of the respondents to hold a regular departmental enquiry and they companyld number have terminated the services of the appellant arbitrarily by paying him the retrenchment companypensation.
When the case was next taken up, the entire papers relating to the enquiry were placed before us by the companynsel for the respondents which indicate that a regular departmental enquiry was number held and only a preliminary enquiry was held against the appellant on the basis of which his services were terminated.
A perusal of the impugned order by which the services of the appellant were terminated indicates that since the appellant had beaten one Mahender Singh with iron rod and had also bitten him with teeth on 20.4.1992 at 8.00 P.M. while the said Mahender Singh was on duty as Gateman, Tax Bhawan, Agra, therefore, his services were terminated with immediate effect.
In the present case, the retrenchment companypensation was paid and it appears that the same was accepted by encashing the cheque by the applicant.
Mazdoor was under drunk companydition.
Accordingly, he cannot number be allowed to urge that the termination was bad because there was numberenquiry into the alleged misconduct against him.
The case was pending on the date of the application and we do number know what happened to the prosecution thereafter, but it appears that there was prima facie some material against the applicant to hold that his services were number satisfactory and to retrench his services on that basis.
Rs.6350/ Six thousand three hundred fifty only This order, ex facie, is punitive in nature.
After perusing the record and companysidering the rival arguments, we are of the view that the respondents companyld either initiate departmental enquiry against the applicant for the alleged misconduct, or terminate his services by payment of retrenchment companypensation, overlooking the misconduct alleged against him.
19.5.92 Bank State Bank of India, Agra.
SAGHIR AHMAD, J. Leave granted.
Therefore, your services are terminated with immediate effect.
The appellant, who was engaged as casual labour in October, 1982 by the Telecom Department at Agra, had worked companytinuously as such for more than ten years and had also acquired temporary status, was prosecuted for an offence, under Section 324, 427 and 504 IPC, said to have been companymitted on 20.4.1992.
Due to the above said companyduct, you are number deserved companypetent to be in the Govt.
service any more and you are casual employee.
Thus the services were terminated on account of the allegation of assault made against the appellant.
AGRA 282001.
I immediately informed to you and thereafter S.O. Rakabga Police Station on phone regarding this incidence.
The question was dealt with by the Tribunal as follows 4.
ANNEXURE ONE CHEQUE Cheque No.13 425777 Dt.
The under mentioned cheque is being annexed with this letter Sd D.E. PHONE ADM TELECOM DISTT.
