Antony Dominic, J. In this OP, the challenge is against the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No.387/ 2012. The petitioner filed the OA challenging Annexure A9, where, Annexure A5 representation made by him, in response to Annexure A4 show cause notice, was rejected. The Tribunal having dismissed the OA, this OP is filed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Assistant Solicitor General appearing for respondents 1 and 2.
3. The facts show that the petitioner entered service under the 1st respondent as Gramin Dak Sevak. On 23/12/2009, he was appointed as male guard. While so, he was issued Annexure A4 memo to show cause notice why his appointment shall not be terminated for the reasons therein. He submitted Annexure A5 representation, which was rejected by Annexure A9. It was in these circumstances, the OA was filed. The reason stated for the termination is that the vacancy in the RMS 'TV' Division were those in the departmental quota, and that, therefore, the appointment of the petitioner to one of the vacancies was an erroneous one. The rival contentions were appreciated by the Tribunal and the Tribunal held thus in Ext.P2 order.
“It appears from the pleadings of the applicant that he seems to accept the realities and acknowledges the judicious decision of the respondents. It is the contention of the respondents that during the selection process in which the applicant was selected and appointed, due to an error occurred, one departmental candidate and one GDS candidate were happened to be appointed without adverting to the fact that both the vacancies had to be filled by departmental candidates. Admittedly the applicant belongs to the GDS category. It is not disputed by the applicant that Shri.J.Balachandran Nair, to whom the respondents propose to give employment in his place, is a departmental candidate who also had obtained qualifying marks in the departmental examination conducted.
8. Respondents in their reply had unambiguously stated that on his eventual reversion to GDS he would be given Group D posting, notionally placing him above his immediate junior in the GDS who had become a Group D employee by now.”
4. Reading of the order shows that two contentions were raised by the petitioner. The first one is that his termination was in violation of the principles of natural justice, in as much as, according to the petitioner, Annexure A4 memo itself reflects the decision of the respondents to terminate him from service. Therefore, according to him, the opportunity to make representations granted to him was in fact a post decisional hearing.
5. As found by the Tribunal, reading of Annexure A4 itself belied the contention raised by the petitioner, in as much as, at that stage, there was only a proposal to terminate the services of the petitioner, and against that proposal, the petitioner was allowed to make his representation. Therefore, it is not correct to say that Annexure A4 contained a decision to terminate the services of the petitioner.
6. The second contention raised by the petitioner was regarding the right of the respondents to terminate him from service. This contention also has been rejected by the Tribunal. As we have already stated, the reason which led the respondents to issue the show cause notice was the error committed by them in appointing the petitioner. When an error has been committed, it is always open to the respondents to correct that error at any point of time. In so far as this case is concerned, admittedly, there was an error. If that be so, respondents were fully entitled to take action for correcting the mistake.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended before us that the prejudice that is caused to the petitioner is irreparable, and that, therefore, at this belated stage, the petitioner should not be disturbed. We are unable to accept this contention for the reason that if the mistake is not corrected, the damage that is caused to another person, as a result of the petitioner's appointment, will also be irreparable. Therefore, we are not impressed by this contention either.
O.P.(CAT) fails and is dismissed.
Rp //True Copy// PA to Judge Sd/-
ANTONY DOMINIC JUDGE Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE