R.N. Singh, Member (J)

1. The applicant has filed this Original Application (OA) under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, challenging the impugned order dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure A-1) whereby his services have been terminated in terms of clause 5(1) of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He has prayed for quashing of impugned order dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure A-1) with a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service w.e.f. 25.07.2017 with all consequential benefits of pay and allowances, seniority etc. along with interest on withheld amounts @ 18% per annum from the date the amount became due to him till the actual date of payment.

2. Succinctly put, facts of the case are that the respondents issued an advertisement for filling up the posts of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant (hereinafter referred to as 'PA/SA') in the pay band of Rs. 5200-20200 with grade pay of Rs. 2400 on direct recruitment basis. Pursuant to the said advertisement, the applicant participated in the selection process. The result of the said selection process was published and the applicant was selected for appointment as PA/SA in Hoshiarpur Division and after completion of requisite formalities, offer of appointment was issued to him by the respondents. In pursuance thereof, the applicant joined at Hoshiarpur Division as PA/SA on 13.04.2015. Thereafter, he was directed to undergo a training to be conducted by the postal department, which he has successfully completed. The respondents, however, vide impugned order dated 25.07.2017 have terminated the services of the applicant with immediate effect under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 with a stipulation that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay and allowances for the period of notice at the rates at which he was drawing immediately before termination of his services in lieu of the notice period. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed a statutory appeal dated 20.07.2018 pleading that he had already completed two years of regular service on 12.04.2017 and hence, being a confirmed employee, his services could not have been terminated under the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965.

3. Some of the similarly situated persons aggrieved by the similar termination approached Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal and this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 18.3.2016 quashed the aforesaid order of the respondents vide which they have cancelled the result of the said examination and further directed the department to probe into the matter by a thorough investigation in a fair and transparent manner. The said Order/Judgment of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal was challenged before the Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad and the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to set aside the aforesaid Order/Judgment of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 16.8.2016. The said Order of the Hon'ble High Court was further challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide common Judgment dated 13.7.2017 in CA No. 10513/2016, titled Monu Tomar vs. Union of India and others, and other connected cases, passed the following orders:-

"We find from a perusal of the report of the Vigilance Committee that the entire examination was not necessarily vitiated but some persons who are suspected of having used malpractices in the examination of Postal Assistant/Sorting Assistant in five circles, viz., Uttarakhand, Rajasthan, Chhattisgarh, Haryana and Gujarat have actually been identified. The respondents will proceed against them in accordance with law but since they are quite a few in number, a formal show cause notice is dispensed with. However, they may be personally called and explained the allegations against them and given some reasonable time of about a week or ten days to give their reply to the allegations and then a final decision may be taken. Those persons who are not suspected of having committed any malpractices and who have undergone the prescribed courses may be reinstated with all 3 consequential benefits and 50% back wages with liberty to the respondents to take action against them in case subsequently it is found in the investigation that they have indulged in some malpractices. We make it clear that the respondents are at liberty to take action against those persons who have violated the terms of the examination such as having appeared in more than one centre. Such violations will also be treated as malpractice. We further make it clear that this order will not enure to the benefit of those persons who have not been given appointment letters. However, we also make it clear that those candidates who have not completed the course but were in the process of completing the course until the impugned action was taken may be permitted to complete the course/training provided they are not suspected of any malpractice. The appeals and special leave petitions stand disposed of."

4. In compliance of the directions of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid Judgment in Manu Tomar (supra), the respondents constituted a Committee to enquire into the matter and based on the findings of the said Committee, the respondents have got many specimen signatures of the applicant and obtained report of Central Forensic Science Laboratory (in short 'CFSL') in the matter. On the basis of the report of the CFSL and the findings of the Committee, the respondents have considered the selection/appointment of the applicant on the aforesaid post and have terminated the services and/or rejected the representation of the applicant against such termination.

5. Pursuant to the notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondents have filed the counter reply where the aforesaid basic facts are not in dispute.

6. During pendency of the OA, the applicant has filed an application stating therein that an identical issue was raised before the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2019, titled Pramod Kumar vs. Union of India and others, against the same respondents and Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal has dealt with the issue after extensive consideration of the facts and law on the subject vide Order/Judgment dated 12.7.2021 in the said OA and has further vide Order/Judgment dated 21.10.2021 in OA No. 223/2019, titled Atul Rajendraprasad Yadav vs. Union of India and others, and, therefore, the present OAs may also be disposed of on the same lines as the OA 223/2019 was disposed of vide Order/Judgment dated 21.10.2021, under reference. The learned senior counsel Dr. Brijendra Chahar, assisted by Mr. Prateek Rai, along with Shri Ronak Karanpuria, learned counsels appearing for applicant submitted that the decision by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Pramod Kumar (supra) is binding on this Tribunal and being similarly placed the applicant is also entitled to be extended the same reliefs, as extended by Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2019, titled Pramod Kumar (supra), which has attained finality. The learned senior counsel further submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 2756/2019 titled Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. v. Director General of Post Services & Others has also followed the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench in Pramod Kumar (supra). The learned senior counsel further submitted that the said decision was further followed by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Bench in OA No. 1040/2021 with OA No. 1389/2018, OA No. 697/2020 and OA No. 1004/2020 - Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. As such, there is no reason to deny the same benefits to the applicant herein being similarly situated.

7. The aforesaid facts have not been disputed by the respondents. However, Shri R.K. Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, with the assistance of counter-affidavit have vehemently opposed the contentions of the applicants and argued that the aforesaid Orders/Judgments dated 12.7.2021 in Pramod Kumar (supra) and dated 21.10.2021 in Atul Rajendraprasad Yadav (supra) of Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal are not binding and hence may not be followed. Shri Jain submitted that the principles of natural justice have been followed inasmuch as CFSL report has been shown to the applicant and the CFSL has reported mismatch of signature(s). However, he was not able to distinguish that judgment as to how the same is not applicable to the applicant in the instant OA. It is further submitted that the appeal filed by the applicant is still pending and hence the OA is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

8. No other ground has been argued by the learned counsels for the parties.

9. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the pleadings on records of the cases carefully.

10. It is evident from the orders/action, impugned in the present OA and it is also not in dispute that the impugned order is based on the report furnished by the CFSL and relying on the same the respondents have passed the impugned orders in the instant OA concluding therein that the applicant had adopted illegal methods to secure his appointment. The factual matrix of the case in hand and that in OA No. 222/2019, titled Pramod Kumar (supra), decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal vide Order/Judgment dated 12.7.2021 and that in OA No. 223/2019, titled Atul Rajendraprasad Yadav (supra) are not in dispute. In para 11 of the aforesaid Order(s)/Judgment(s), Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal has recorded that 'the reason assigned for not reinstating the applicant is stigmatic and cannot be said to be simpliciter. The said stigma will ruin the career of the applicant. The respondents ought not to have passed such an order without affording an opportunity to the applicant to explain his position'. Paras 12 to 14 of the said Orders/Judgments of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal (supra) read as under:-

"12. At this stage, it is appropriate to refer the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavanendera Narayan Verma Vs. Sanjay Gandhi PGI of Medical Science reported in (2002) SCC (L & S) 170 wherein at para-21 the Hon'ble Apex Court as held as under:-

'21. One of the judicially evolved tests to determine whether in substance an order of termination is punitive is to see whether prior to the termination there was (a) a full scale formal enquiry (b) into allegations involving moral turpitude or misconduct (c) which (c) culminated in a finding of guilt. If all three factors are present the termination has been held to be punitive irrespective of the form of the termination order. Conversely if any one of the three factors is missing, the termination has been upheld." In the present case, as noted hereinabove before issuance of order of termination, no inquiry was held. Subsequently, in light of direction issued by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the SLP filed by the applicant and the identically situated candidates, the respondent had undertaken the exercise to re-verify the identities of the candidates before their reinstatement and in this regard the respondent had obtained hundred signatures of the applicants and had sent for examination along with specimen copy to the CFSL and sought CFSL's report with respect to questioned signatures of the applicant by way of formal inquiry. The respondent Postal Department assigned the reason for not reinstating the applicant, that there was adverse report of CFSL against the applicant which amounted to allegation of moral turpitude against the applicant and finally culminated in a finding of guilt which resulted in issuance of the impugned order (Ann. A/1). All the three factors as stated by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Pavanendra Narayan Verma (Supra) are present in the case at hand. It can be seen that a plain reading of impugned decision dated 07.01.2019 (Ann. A/1), would indicate that it is stigmatic in nature. Thus, we are of considered opinion that the impugned decision of termination and denial of reinstatement of the applicants is punitive in nature and the same is stigmatic. The impugned orders should not have been passed by the respondent (Postal Department) without observing of principles of natural justice. The said impugned orders therefore, are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The impugned decision is also not tenable in light of dictum laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Magan Biharlilal Vs. State of Punjab & Haryana reported in AIR 1977 SC 1091 wherein it was held that conviction cannot be based on the opinion of the hand writing expert as it is unsafe to base a conviction solely on expert opinion without any substantial corroboration. In the present case, the respondents relied upon the CFSL hand writing expert opinion and based on it denied the reinstatement of the applicants and that too without any other corroboration whatsoever. In absence of any material contrary to what is noted hereinabove, the decision making process and the conclusion arrived at by the respondents, in our considered view is vitiated and suffers from legal infirmity and therefore the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.'

13. In view of above discussions and in light of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court as referred hereinabove, the impugned orders (Ann. A/1) passed by respondent No. 3 is quashed and set aside. The case is remitted back to the respondent No. 2 & 3 with a direction to consider the candidature of the applicants for reinstatement in light of what is stated hereinabove as also, if no other adverse report is found against them by following the principles of natural justice. It is expected that the respondents concerned will carry out the directed exercise within a period of 60 days positively from the date of receipt of the copy of this order.

14. Accordingly, OA stands partly allowed. No order as to cost."

11. In the case in hand as well, the impugned order and termination of the applicant is stigmatic and the facts and circumstances are identical to that in the cases decided by the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal referred to hereinabove. Accordingly, we are of the considered view that the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondents that the aforesaid Orders/Judgments of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal will not be binding for the reason that the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal has placed also reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Magan Biharlilal (supra) is misconceived.

12. We also note that a coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Principal Bench, where one of us (Mr. R.N. Singh was a Member), in OA No. 2756/2019 titled Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. v. Director General of Post Services & Others along with connected matters have followed the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Pramod Kumar and Atul Rajendraprasad Yadav (supra) and have partly allowed the claims of the applicants therein vide order/judgment dated 10.03.2022. We, therefore, do not find any reason not to extend the benefit of the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in Pramod Kumar and Atul Rajendraprasad Yadav (supra) and as followed in Sanjeev Kumar & Anr. (supra) by the Tribunal. In our considered view the applicants herein are also entitled to be extended the same benefits.

13. As regards the objection raised by Mr. Jain that the appeal filed by the applicant is still pending and as such the OA is liable to be rejected on this ground alone, we are of the considered opinion that, in the normal course, we would have remanded the matter back to the appellate authority to decide the pending appeal of the applicant, but keeping in view the fact that the applicant is seeking extension of the benefit of a decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of this Tribunal in OA No. 222/2019 and OA No. 223/2019 (supra) which has also been followed by the Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal at Principal Bench in OA No. 2756/2019 (supra), and also the fact that the same has attained finality, the objection raised by Mr. Jain, is overruled. The said decision of the Ahmedabad Bench was further followed by the Coordinate Bench at Principal Bench in OA No. 1040/2021 with OA No. 1389/2018, OA No. 697/2020 and OA No. 1004/2020 - Rakesh Kumar v. Union of India & Ors. etc. etc. (supra). Moreover, the respondents by filing the counter-reply have disclosed their mind in the matter.

14. The normal rule is that when a particular set of employees is given relief by Court, all other identically situated persons should be treated alike by extending same benefit since not doing so would amount to discrimination and be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. However, this normal rule is subject to well recognised exceptions in form of laches, delays and acquiescence which would be valid grounds to dismiss the claim. But the said exception would not apply to those cases where judgment pronounced by Court was judgment in rem with intention to benefit all similarly situated persons irrespective of whether they had approached Court or not. In such situation, obligation is cast upon authorities themselves to extend benefit to all similarly situated persons. But where judgment was in personam, those who intend to get benefit of said judgment must satisfy court that their petition does not suffer from laches, delays or acquiescence. It is not the case of the respondents here that the judgment of the Ahmedabad Bench (supra) was a judgment in personam. Hence, the applicants before us, in our considered opinion, are also entitled to get the benefits of the said judgment(s).

15. In the result, for parity of reasons, the present OA is partly allowed. Termination of the applicant is held to be bad in law. The impugned order dated 25.07.2017 (Annexure A-1) is set aside. The matter is remitted to the respondents with a direction to consider the candidature of the applicant for reinstatement in the light of what is stated hereinabove by following the principles of natural justice. It is further directed that the respondents shall complete the aforesaid exercise as expeditiously as possible and preferably within eight weeks of receipt of a certified copy of this Order.

16. Pending MA, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. However, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, there shall be no order as to costs.