Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Jhabbu Kumar Ram vs East Central Railway on 20 March, 2024
::1:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
O.A. No. 050/00332/2022
Reserved on: 26.02. 2024
Pronouncement on: 20.03.2024
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, MEMBER [A]
HON'BLE MR. AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER [J]
JHABBU KUMAR RAM Son Of Late Lal Bachan Ram, Ex Trainee
Helper Khalasi (BRD) Under Senior Section Engineer (TRD), East Central
Railway, Buxar, Resident Of Village- Rajapur, PO- Gosaipur, PS- Rajpur,
District- Buxar (Bihar).
.......... Applicant.
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Patna Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Digghi Kala, P.S. - Hajipur (Town), District -
Bench Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin Code - 841001 (BIHAR).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur, P.O.
Digghi Kala, P.S. - Hajipur (Town), District - Vaishali At Hajipur, Pin
Code - 841001 (BIHAR).
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur, Post
Khagaul, District- Patna-801105 (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Danapur, Post Khagaul, District- Patna-801105 (Bihar)
5. The Assistant Electrical Engineer/Trd, East Central Railway, Buxar-
802114 (Bihar)
6. Sri Abul Kalam, Welfare Inspector Office of Senior Divisional Personnel
Officer, East Central Railway, Danapur, PO-Khagaul District-Patna-
801105 (Bihar)
........Respondents
For Applicant:- Shri Jhabbu Kumar Ram, Applicant-in-Person.
For Respondents:- Shri H.P. Singh, Senior Central Government
Standing Counsel for respondent no. 1 to 5.
Shri Shekhar Singh, Advocate for respondent no.6.
ORDER
AS PER:- AJAY PRATAP SINGH, MEMBER[JUDICIAL]
1. The present original application has been filed under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals, Act 1985 seeking to set-aside impugned orders dated 13.02.2017, 20/22.01.2020 and 16.02.2022 and to re-instate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay and allowances w.e.f. 13.02.2017 till date along with interest.
::2:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH
PRAYER
1. The applicant has claimed the following main relief (as extracted from the OA) as under-
"8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Orders dated 13.02.2017, 20/22.01.2020 and 16.02.2022 as contained in Annexure-A/1, A/2 & A/3 respectively.
8.2 That Your Lordships may further be pleased to direct Respondents to re- instate the applicant in service henceforth.
8.3 That your Lordships may further be to the direct / Command the Respondents to grant all consequential benefits in favour of the Applicant including arrears of pay from 13.02.2017 43 to till date along with statutory interest upon the arrears amount.
8.4 Any other relief or reliefs as may deem fit and proper including the cost of the proceeding may be allowed in favour of the applicant."
FACTS IN BRIEF
2. Briefly, Stated the facts as adumbrated by the applicant in the OA that his Patna Bench father was working in the Railways as TrackMan and died on 13.09.2014 in harness. The Respondents granted approval for appointment of applicant on the post of Trainee Khalasi (TRD). The respondent No. 6 working as welfare inspector taken signature of the applicant on the Attestation Form dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure A-4) and applicant did not fill up the form himself.
3. The further case of applicant that he was discharging duties on the post of Trainee Helper Khalasi (BRD) and was shocked to receive the Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure A-6). The Show Cause Notice stated that applicant has given wrong information in the column number 12(1)(a) to (k) relating criminal cases pending against him and written that no criminal case is pending. The Office of Superintendent of Police, Buxar has informed that applicant is named as one of the accused in crime number 125/2016 dated 08.09.2006 relating to the offence under section 341, 323, 325, 307, 564, 302 read with section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2016 was served on the applicant to explain why he be not removed from the service for furnishing false information and suppressing of actual information in the Attestation Form.
4. The applicant submitted reply dated 09.12.2016 stating that applicant did not fill up the information in the Attestation form and he only put up his signature. The Attestation form was duly filled up by the then welfare Inspector respondent number 6. The applicant further stated that the ::3:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH criminal appeal is pending before Hon'ble High Court and judgment of the trial court has not attained finality.
5. It is also the case of applicant that without holding any enquiry impugned order dated 13.02.2017 removal from service was passed for concealment of the facts and giving false information in the Attestation form in column No. 12(1) (a) to (k) and on verification same was found to be false. The Hon'ble High Court Patna in CRA (DB) No. 707 of 2010 Jhabbu Ram Versus the State of Bihar vide judgment dated 23.03.2018 acquitted the applicant setting-aside judgment of conviction and sentence order dated 26.03.2010 and 30.03.2010 passed by A.S.J Fast Track Court-III, Buxar in Session Trial Number 10 of 2007.
6. The applicant submitted representation against impugned order dated Patna Bench 13.02.2017 and same was rejected vide impugned order dated 20/22.01.2020, without application of mind. Thereafter applicant submitted representation to the Railway Board and vide impugned Order dated 16.02.2022 (Annexure A-3) same also stands rejected due to concealment of information and furnishing false information in column number 12(1) (a) to (k) in the Attestation form. Hence the applicant is before this Tribunal to set-aside orders dated 13.02.2017, 20/22.01.2020 and 16.02.2022 and reinstate applicant in service with all consequential benefits.
7. Per Contra, the official respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing the written statement that younger brother of the applicant made complain on 25.11.2015 that the applicant- Jhabbu Kumar was in custody for last four years accused in offence related to Section 302 of the IPC in FIR No. 125/2006. The Show Cause Notice was served on the ground of concealment of the fact that he had already been convicted by the Fast Track Court-III, Buxar in Sessions Trial Case Number 10 of 2007 vide judgment of conviction dated 26.03.2010 and sentence order dated 30.03.2010. Thereafter filed Criminal Appeal (DB) No. 707 of 2010 before Hon'ble High Court Patna and at the time of his initial appointment the criminal appeal was pending and he was on bail. The respondents have further stated that applicant deliberately suppressed the material information in column number 12(1)(a) to (k) in the Attestation form and fraudulently obtained appointment on the concealment of the facts and cannot be reinstated on the ground of acquittal. The termination of services is on the factum of giving wrong information having bearing on his ::4:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH character to adjudge suitability for the railway service and there is no connection with his acquittal in the criminal case.
8. The respondents categorically stated in the para 10 of the written statement that applicant deliberately suppressed information and never informed the administration about his involvement in any criminal case and deserve no sympathy. The applicant was given proper opportunity of hearing and thereafter competent authority passed reasoned speaking orders no interference is warranted in the present OA.
9. The respondent no. 6 has also filed the detailed reply stating that the applicant was sent through by the post letter dated 13.02.2015 by the Railway administration along with Attestation form and character certificate form and thus it is denied that private respondent filled up the Patna Bench antecedents forms. The private respondent categorically and specifically denied that he had not filled up the attestation form and stated that statements dated 03.12.2019 and 20.11.2019 Annexure A-5, and A-5(a) is afterthought and concocted story cooked up against the private respondent to contest the case.
10. The Rejoinder has been filled by the applicant specifically denying the contentions of the respondents made in the written statement. The applicant has reiterated that since he has been acquitted on 23.03.2018 before the impugned order of termination, hence deserves to be reinstated in service.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPLICANT-IN-PERSON
11. Shri Jhabbu Kumar Ram, the applicant appearing as party-in-person submitted that impugned orders dated 13.07.2017, 20/22.01.2020 and dated 16.02.2022 are without application of mind, arbitrary as applicant did not fill up the attestation form same was filled up by private respondent- Welfare Inspector. The attestation form was only signed by the applicant as such nothing was concealed by the applicant, had it been asked to the applicant he could have definitely disclosed about the pending criminal appeal before Hon'ble High Court. As such this is no concealment of the material information on the part of the applicant.
12. The applicant appearing as party-in-person further argued that applicant has already been acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court Patna in CRA (DB) No. 707 of 2010 Jhabbu Ram vs the State of Bihar vide judgment dated 23.03.2018 and he did not fill the Attestation form dated 23.05.2015, otherwise could have certainly disclosed. The Hon'ble High Court has ::5:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH already acquitted the applicant in the criminal case and there is no any other criminal case pending. The applicant much emphasized to set-aside impugned orders and direction be issued to reinstate him in services as applicant already been acquitted in the pending criminal case and criminal appeal has been allowed.
13. The applicant further contended that Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another versus Dhaval Singh, reported in AIR 1999 Supreme Court 2326 has set-aside termination order directing to reinstate the petitioner. So also Hon'ble High Court Patna in case of CWJC No. 819 of 2014 Niraj Kumar Versus Union Of India decided on 21.02.2014 directed to reinstate applicant. The applicant much emphasized to allow the OA in light of law laid down in above Patna Bench mentioned cases.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE OFFICIAL RESPONDENTS
14. Shri H.P. Singh Learned Senior Central Government Standing counsel appearing for the official respondents argued that the applicant being probationer, temporary railway employee and his service terminated vide order dated 13.02.2017 and consequential order dated 20/22.01.2020 and 16.02.2022 based on concealment of the material fact and furnishing wrong information particularly in column number 12(1) (a) to (k) of the attestation form dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure A-4) and as on 23.05.2015 Criminal Cases relating to the crime number 125/2006 dated 08.09.2006 PS Rajapur under section 341,323, 325,307,564,302 read with section 34 of IPC was pending and charge sheet was submitted. The applicant was convicted and sentenced vide judgment dated 26.03.2010, 30.03.2010 in Session Trial No.10 of 2007 by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track-III Buxar under section 302 read with section 34 of IPC for life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000. The applicant at the time of submission of the attestation form dated 23.05.2015 was admitted to the regular bail. The termination form service is not based on conviction in criminal case but on the suppression of the material facts at time of submitting the attestation form and concealment still exists after judgment dated 23.03.2018 as to acquittal in the criminal case by Hon'ble High Court Patna in CRA (DB) no. 707 of 2010 Jhabbu Ram Versus State of Bihar.
15. Shri H.P.Singh Learned Senior CGSC further argued that the applicant himself signed the bilingual Hindi and English attestation form dated ::6:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH 23.05.2015 also signifies that he was aware of the information submitted in column number 12(1) (a) to (k) as well as of other contents by answering the same by writing address etc. which later was found that at time of filling of attestation form i.e. 23.05.2015. In the Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007 applicant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment on 26.03.2010/30.3.2010 by Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track-III Buxar and CRA(DB) No. 707/2010 was pending before Hon'ble High Court Patna in which applicant acquitted on 23.03.2018. Thus the suppression of material information in column no. 12 (1) (a) to (k) the attestation form lead to disqualification as stated in the column number 1, 2 and 3 of the attestation form.
16. Shri H. P. Singh Learned Sr. CGSC also vociferously canvassed that Patna Bench applicant's services terminated by the official respondents on ground of Concealment of the Criminal antecedents at the time of submitting antecedent form and furnished wrong information. Thereafter applicant never informed about the Criminal Case before the reply dated 9.12.2016 to Show Cause notice dt. 25.11.2016 was submitted. The ratio of judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court Case in Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another versus Dhaval Singh, reported in AIR 1999 SC 2326 is not applicable as facts are different. There is no voluntary disclosure from applicant before issuance of show cause notice dt. 25.11.2016. The applicant's disqualification from services is based on his concealment of fact in the attestation/ antecedents form and not based on conviction in Sessions Trial No. 10/2007 hence no advantage can be granted to applicant because he has been acquitted in the criminal case.
SUBMISSION OF THE RESPONDENT NO. 617. Shri Shekahr Singh, Learned counsel for private respondent argued that initial order of appointment order dt. 13.05.2015 with attestation form was sent by the post to address of applicant and not by the present private respondent. The stand of applicant is concocted, false, afterthought and he had no role in filling the Attestation Form dated 23.05.2015.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
18. We have bestowed our anxious Considerations on the rival contentions of the applicant appearing party-in personand learned counsel appearing for the official respondents no. 1 to 5 and private respondent no. 6 and also ::7:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH perused the material placed on record as well as considered the precedents cited by the parties.
19. The admitted facts in the case on hand, it is the matter of fact that F.I.R was lodged vide Crime No. 125/ 2006 dated 8.9.2006 Police Station Rajpur, Buxar relating to the offences under Section 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and chargesheet was filed before Additional Sessions Judge Fast Track-III Court, Buxar. The applicant was convicted vide judgment dated 26.3.2010 and sentence order dt. 30.3.2010 by the A.S. J. Fast Track Court-Ⅲ, Buxar in Sessions Trial no. 10/2007. Thereafter applicant filed CRA (DB) No. 707 of 2010 Jhabbu Ram Versus State of Bihar. The initial appointment Order dated 13.5.2015 (Annexure R/1 with the written statement filed by respondent Patna Bench no.6) was issued with clear stipulation in Para no. 2 and 3 that his services can be terminated giving notice and appointment was purely temporary in nature. The Para 11 of the initial appointment Order dated 13.5.2015 clearly mentioned that if the information furnished and certificates found to be false giving the wrong information then his candidature will be cancelled without giving any notice. So also criminal case would be lodged and pay and allowances granted would also be recovered.
20. Thus it is evident that the Criminal Case was already registered and applicant stood convicted by the sessions Court in year 2010 and filed CRA (DB) No. 707/2010 before Hon'ble High Court. Thereafter the applicant submitted attestation form dated 23.5.2015 with his own signature. Thereafter Hon'ble High Court in CRA No.(DB) No. 707/2010 vide judgment dated 23.3.2018 acquitted the applicant and set-aside judgement and conviction order dt 26.3.2010 and 30.3.2010 of Addl. Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court- III, Buxar in Sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007.
21. Thus there can be no denial of the fact that against- applicant criminal case was registered and applicant suffered Conviction by the Sessions Court vide judgment dt 26.3.2010 and sentenced on 30.3.2010. The attestation form Column No. 12(1) (a) to (K) relating to Criminal Case Information, suppressing the material information relating to Criminal case ignoring the warning leading to disqualification of the Candidate and applicant was probationer in the railway service.
22. The dispute in the present Case that the stand of the applicant is that the attestation form dated 23.05.2015 was only signed by the applicant whereas ::8:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH it was filled by the Welfare Inspector - respondent no.6 hence he could not disclose the criminal antecedents. The Hon'ble High Court, Patna has already acquitted applicant vide judgment dated 23.3.2018 in CRA NO. 707/2010 setting-aside Conviction and life imprisonment sentence under Sec 302/r/w sec 34 of the I.P.C. and fine. Hence on this ground impugned orders of removal from service based on ground of suppression of material information by applicant in the attestation form deserves to be quashed. Whereas the stand of the respondents that justification given by the applicant qua non- filling of the said Attestation form cannot be accepted for the reason that applicant has put his Signature in conformity with the information given in the Attestation form which includes information like his name, father's name, place of residence etc. warning for disqualification Patna Bench etc. The stand of the applicant is an afterthought the respondent no. 6 has specifically denied that he had not filled up said attestation form and same was dispatched to the applicant by the post. The applicant at no point of time disclosed his criminal antecedent and deliberately suppressed criminal antecedents and fraudulently obtained appointment having bearing on the Continuity. The termination of service is due to concealment of material facts bearing on his suitability and not based on due to conviction. The applicant was for two years on probation on period and show cause notice, reasonable opportunity already given before issuance of the impugned orders.
THE ISSUE
23. From the above submissions of the Parties and material placed on record. The short issue which arises for our Consideration -
"Whether the respondents are justified in passing the impugned orders, whereby the services of the applicant terminated on the ground of suppression of the material information in the Attestation form filled by the applicant on 23.5.2015?"
24. It is the matter of fact that Criminal Case vide Crime no. 125/2006 dated 8 Rule 9 of the Rules 1968.2006 P.S. Rajpur, Buxar relating to offences under Sec 341, 323, 325, 307, 504, 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC was pending against the accused-the applicant. As informed by S.P. Buxar vide letter dt 28.5.2016. The applicant was also Convicted on 26-3-2010 and sentenced for life imprisonment vide order dt 30.3.2010 in the Sessions Trial no. 10 of 2007. Thereafter applicant filed CRA (DB) 707 of 2010 ::9:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH before Hon'ble High Court Patna. The younger brother of applicant sent complain dt 21.11.2016 (Annexure R-1) regarding obtaining fake police verification report for securing appointment in Railways, whereas he has been convicted on 26.3.2010 for life imprisonment and was in jail for four years. The Applicant submitted attestation form on 25.3.2015 and abovementioned Criminal Case was quashed only vide judgment dated 23.3.2018 in CRA (DB) No. 707 of 2010. Thus there can be no denial of the fact that applicant did Conceal the registration of a Criminal case against him. The suppression of Criminal antecedents in the column 12 (1)
(a) to (k) of the attestation form dated 25.3.2015 is deliberate act to procure fraudulently, appointment and accordance with the terms and Conditions no. 11 of the initial appointment Order dated 13.5.2015 (Annexure R/1 at Patna Bench page no. 129-to 130 of the OA) not entitled to continue in service. The suppression of said material information in character antecedents form has bearing on his continuity in service as per condition no.11 of appointment order dt. 13.5.2016, as the applicant was holding purely temporary offer of appointment under two years period of probation in railways. The condition number 11 of the conditional appointment order dt. 13.5.2015 reproduced as for ready reference as under --------
"1. आपको उपयुक्त वेतन वततमान और उस पर सामान्य रूप से दे ये महंगाई भत्ते पर ट्रै क मेंटेनेंस ग्रेट 4 के पद पर अस्थाई ननयुक्क्त का प्रस्ताव ददया जाता है । बरसात है यह इस रे लवे के प्राधिकृत धिककत्सा अधिकारी द्वारा ली जाने वाली ननिातररत डॉक्टरी परीक्षा पास करें और अपनी उम्र के सबूत में संतोष जनक कागज जैसे जन्म अथवा का प्रमाण पत्र आदद कल रूप से पेश करें ।
2. आप इसे अच्छी तरह समझ लें कक यह ननयुक्क्त आप या रे ल प्रशासन दोनों में से ककसी एक पक्ष क्जस कारण बताएं। 14 ददन का सूिना पर समाप्त हो जा सकती है |
3. आप जबटक अस्थायी सेवा में रहें गे तबतक समय-समय पर लागू ककए गए। ननयमों के अंतगतत अस्थायी कमतिाररयों को दे य अनुपक्स्थनत भात के अलावे भववष्य ननधि या उपदान (gratuity ) ननयमों के अंतगतत दे य ककसी तरह के पेंशन या लाभ पाने के हकदार नहीं होंगे।
4. * * *
5. * * *
6. * * *
7. * * *
8. * * *
9. आप इस बात का स्मरण रखें की आपकी ननयुक्क्त अस्थायी है ।
10. * * *
11. प्रशासन द्वारा आवश्यकता पड़ने पर आपको सभी प्रशशक्षक पुनश्त ियत पाठ्यक्रम में जाना पड़े यह भी सूधित ककया जाता है कक आपके द्वारा ददए गए वववरण एवं प्रमाण पत्र भववष्य में गलत सत्य पाए गए तो न केवल आपको उम्मीदवारी बगौर सूिना के ननरस्त कर दद जायेगी बक्कक प्रशासननक एवं फोजदारी मुकदमा भी िलया जायेगा मुकदमा भी िलाया जाएगा क्जसके शलए आप स्वयं क्जम्मेदार होंगे, साथ ही रे ल द्वारा आपको वेतन इत्यादद के रूप में जो दद गई िन राशश को भी वसूला जायेगा
12. यदद आप इन प्रश्नों पर नौकरी करने को इच्छुक हो तो अपनी स्वीकृनत दें और इस बात के साथ सलंग्न द्वारा प्राप्त में संकुधित रूप से भरकर इस कायातलय में जमा कारण तथा पहले प्राप्त अपने पास रखें। यदद नौकरी का यह प्रस्ताव आपको मंजूर है तो इस कारण में नतधथ 11. 6. 2015 तक उपक्स्थत हूं। यदद आप ननक्श्ित नतधथ तक ::10:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH ननयुक्क्त प्रस्ताव पर अपना सहमनत दे कर नहीं ददए जाने पर ननयुक्क्त प्रस्ताव खाररज कर ददया जाएगा और आगे 1 साल के शलए अनुकंपा के आिार पर वविार नहीं ददया जाएगा।"
मै आपका उपयुक् त त शतों पर ननयुक्क्त का प्रस्ताव स्वीकार करता/करती हूूँ।
हस्ताक्षर"
[Emphasis supplied]
25. The Railway Board has issued RBE No. 23/1989 dated 20.01.1989 on the subject of confirmation and Para 2.1 (ii), (iii) specifically provide for successful two years' probation period for confirmation. The applicant did not successfully complete two years' probation period and was probationer discharging duties of temporary employee not confirmed hence show cause notice dated 25.11.2016 was issued accordance with rules before taking action.
Patna 26. The offer of appointment dated 13.5.2015 as extracted herein above, was Bench purely in nature of temporary and conditional. So is the case as evident from order dt 7.7.2015 Annexure A-5(a). The Rule 301 of Indian Railway Establishment Code-vol. 3, having statutory force as his Excellency President framed under exercise of power under Article 309 of the Constitution of India. The Statutory Rule 301(1) of the IREC-I also provides termination of Service and period of notice in case of temporary railway servant so also stipulated in condition no.11 of the offer of appointment dated 13.5.2015 a notice of 14 days to explain why applicant given wrong information to the railways in the attestation form/character antecedents form suppressing Material information as to pendency of Criminal case having bearing on his continuity in service as same amount to deliberate act to obtain fraudulently appointment and incurring disqualification and appointment voidable at the instance of railways-the employer.
27. The Show Cause Notice dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure A-5) was issued to the applicant for breach of the conditions of offer of appointment and furnishing wrong information prima-facie is a clear case of concealment of material information not have referred to the criminal case and applicant was convicted person at the time of issuance of offer of appointment in year 2015. The undisputed fact that applicant never disclosed about the criminal case in any of his representation before issuance of notice dated 25.11.2016.
::11:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH
28. The applicant consciously certified information is correct and complete in the attestation form dated 23.05.2015 (Annexure-A/4). The clause number 1,2,3 and 12(1)(a) to (k) of the attestation form dated 23.05.2015 worded in Hindi and English submitted by the applicant is reproduced as for ready reference reads as---
"1. I/The furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the attestation form would be disqualification, and is likely to render the candidate, unfit for employment under the government.
2. I/If detained, arrested, prosecuted, bound down, fined, convicted, debarred, acquitted, etc. subsequent to the completion and submission of this form, the details should be communicated immediately to the authorities to whom the attestation form has been sent early, failing which it will be deemed to be a suppression of factual information.
Patna 3. I/If the fact that for false information has been furnished or that there has been Bench suppression of any factual information in the attestation form comes to notice at anytime during the service of a person, his service would be liable to be terminated.
a) Have you ever been arrested?(No)
b) Have you ever been prosecuted? (No)
c) Have you ever been kept under detention? (No)
d) Have you ever been bound down? (No)
e) Have you even been fined by a court of law? (No)
f) Have you even been convicted by a court of law for any offence? (No)
g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or restricted by any university or any other education/authority/institution? (No)
h) Have you ever been disqualified by any Public Service Commission/Staff selection Commission for any of its examination/selection? (No)
i) Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the time of filling up this attestation form? (No)
j) Is any case pending against you in any university or any other educational authority/institution at the time of filing of this attestation form? (No)
k) Weather discharged/expelled/withdrawn from any training institution under the government or otherwise? (No)
29. We have considered material available on record and find that the bare perusal of the aforesaid clauses column no. 1, 2, 3, and 12 (I) (a) to (k) of the attestation form submitted by the applicant reflect that the applicant was required to disclose in the column no. 12 (1) (a) to (k), the fact regarding pendency or disposal of the criminal case registered against him. The aforesaid clauses/ columns, incorporated by the employer also in the terms of appointment order dt. 13.05.2015, and attestation form was for verification of the character antecedents bearing on judging suitability for the job and had ::12:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH direct relation to continuity in service. The applicant did suppress material information and incurred disqualification for the appointment accordance with due procedure, the appointment treated as void and services terminated found unsuitable and applicant cannot claim to continue in service as a matter of right, having obtained fraudulently appointment by suppression of material fact and filing a false information and false declaration on attestation form dated 23.5.2015.
30. Now we are coming to the justification given by the applicant qua-non-filling of the attestation form dated 23.5.2015.The applicant has not disclosed the Criminal antecedents in any of the representations before issue of notice dated 25.11.2016. The private respondent no. 6, Welfare Inspector has filed reply in the present OA and stated on oath that he did not fill up the attestation Patna Bench form dated 23.5.2015, rather the form was sent by the post and also did not hand over the form to the applicant. Suffice to conclude that the justification of the applicant qua-non-filling of the said form by him cannot be accepted for the reason that applicant admittedly put-up his signature in conformity with the information given in the attestation form which also included other information like name, father's name, place of residence etc.
31. We are of the opinion that the stand of the applicant in the present OA is nothing but as an afterthought and to create ground for challenging the impugned orders of termination of services.
32. In view, whereof, we find no irregularity and infirmity in the impugned orders and present. OA being devoid of merit no interference warranted.
33. We are in seisin with the short issue which arises for consideration is "whether the respondents in passing the impugned orders are justified, whereby the services of the applicant was terminated on the ground of the suppression of the material information in the Attestation Form dated 23.05.2015, filled by the applicant?"
The Hon'ble Supreme Court has settled the legal prepositions, as such the issue on hand is squarely covered by the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Case Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Versus Ram Ratan Yadav, reported in (2003) 3 SCC 437. The relevant paragraph 11 and 12 reads as under:-
11. "It is not in dispute that a criminal case registered under Sections 323, 341, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC was pending on the date when the respondent filled the attestation form. Hence, the information given by the respondent as against columns 12 and 13 as "No" is plainly ::13:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH suppression of material information and it is also a false statement.
Admittedly, the respondent is holder of BA, BEd and MEd degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. It is also not the case of the respondent that he did not study English at all. If he could understand columns 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of columns 12 and
13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken the help of somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the High Court committed a manifest error in accepting the contention that because the medium of instruction of the respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. It is not the case that columns 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said "No" as against columns 12 and 13 without understanding the contents. Subsequent withdrawal of criminal case registered against the respondent or the nature of offences, in our opinion, were not material. The requirement of filling columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form was for the purpose of verification of character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filling and Patna attestation of the form. Suppression of material information and making Bench a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service.
12. The object of requiring information in columns 12 and 13 of the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents to judge his suitability to continue in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had the discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment. The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The information in the said columns was sought with a view to judge the character and antecedents of the respondent to continue in service or not. The High Court, in our view, has failed to see this aspect of the matter. It went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedents of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The High Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal. The High Court was again not right in taking note of the withdrawal of the case by the State Government and that the case was not of a serious nature to set aside the order of the Tribunal on that ground as well. The respondent accepted the offer of appointment subject to the terms and conditions mentioned therein with his eyes wide open. Para 9 of the said memorandum extracted above in clear terms kept the respondent informed that the suppression of any information may lead to dismissal from service. In the attestation form, the respondent has certified that the information given by him is correct and complete to the best of his knowledge and belief; if he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13, he could not certify so. Having certified that the information given by him is correct and complete, his version cannot be accepted. The order of termination of services clearly shows that there has been due consideration of various aspects. In this view, the argument of the learned counsel for the respondent that as per para 9 of the ::14:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH memorandum, the termination of service was not automatic, cannot be accepted."
[Emphasis supplied]
34. Shri Jhabbu Kumar, the applicant appearing as party-in-person has also relied upon the Case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another versus Dhaval Singh (Supra) and Niraj Kumar versus Union of India, CWJC No. 819 of 2014, decided on 21.2.2014 by Hon'ble High Court Patna. We have carefully gone through the above cited judgments.
35. But it is settled position of law that judgment has got no universal application rather the judgment is to be tested on the basis of fact of each case. Reference in this regard be made to the judgment rendered of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy versus State of Tamil Nadu and others, (2014) 5 SCC75. The relevant paragraph 47 which reads as under ----
Patna "47. It is a settled legal proposition that the ratio of any decision Bench must be understood in the background of the facts of that case and the case is only an authority for what it actually decides, and not what logically follows from it. "The Court should not-place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact Situation of the decision on which reliance is placed."
[Emphasis supplied]
36. We are now proceeding to examine the factual aspects as was in the Case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another versus Dhaval Singh (Supra) and found that therefrom that it is a case of the constable, who has alleged to have concealed Material information in the application form that there was a Criminal case pending against him. The character antecedents form was submitted. The employee filed representation informing about criminal case to rectify the defect in the attestation form. The case of the employee was that there was an omission on the part of the respondent to give information against the relevant column about pendency of the criminal case not in dispute. The fact of the Matter that employee, however, voluntarily conveyed it on 15.11.1995 to the employer - appellant that he inadvertently failed to mention in the appropriate Column regarding pendency of the Criminal case against him and his letter be treated as information. The employer did not take note of said application.
37. In such circumstances the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the order of the Tribunal on the ground that in such case it was inadvertent mistake committed and there was case of conveying the voluntarily information just after ::15:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH submitting antecedents form to cure the defect in the form which had occurred.
38. But here in the case on hand we have analysed in detail and find that wherein applicant has filled up the attestation form on 23.5.2015 thereafter never removed defect and deliberately not filled up in Column no. 12 (1) (a) to (k) about his pending criminal case registered vide crime no.125/2006 dated 8.9.2006 P.S. Rajpur, Buxar relating to offences under Section 341,323,325,307, 504, 302 read with Section - 34 of the IPC. The applicant's brother informed that applicant was in jail and suffered incarcination for four years and not disclosed in the form. The applicant was convicted and sentenced for life imprisonment on 30.3.2010 by the Fast Track Court, Buxar in sessions Trial No. 10 of 2007 and filed CRA (DB) Patna Bench No.707/2010 before the Hon'ble High Court Patna. Thus it is the matter of fact that on 25.3.2015 against applicant criminal case was pending and in spite of warning, applicant suppressed the material information in column no. 12 (1) (9)to (K) by mentioning no criminal case ever registered.
39. Therefore, the judgment rendered in case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi and another versus Dhaval Singh (Supra) not applicable in the present Case on hand and in present case there is neither correction made in the attestation form nor given information against relevant column in the form before cancellation of his candidature.
40. We are also examining the factual aspect as was in the case of Niraj Kumar versus Union of India & others (supra) and found therefrom that it is a case of termination from the post of constable, CISF in exercise of the power under Rule 25 (2) of CISF Rules 2000 to terminate service after issue of notice of the probationer after giving one month notice or after giving Month's pay in lieu thereof, if appointing authority is of the view such probationer is not fit for permanent appointment in the force. The admitted fact that at time of filling up attestation form did not disclose facts as regard to involvement in the Criminal case. The petitioner's stand in the case was that the Criminal case was of petty dispute over property subsequently acquitted by JMFC violation of policy at 01.02.2012 as without notice termination order cannot be passed.
41. In such circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court Patna has considered the matter that it is the conscious decision of the Government of India that in cases where the candidates have been appointed while terminating such ::16:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH appointment principles of natural justice will have to be followed being heard to be accorded to the candidate. The Hon'ble High Court allowed the writ application directed to reinstate with liberty to the appointing authority to take appropriate steps accordance with law.
42. But here in the Case on our hand is accordance with conditions of appointment, applicant was also probationer as well as accordance with Railway Board statutory rules Rule 301 of IREC-I on receipt of Police verification report show cause notice dated 25.11.2016 (Annexure A-6) was issued to furnish explanation for breach to the conditions of appointment order and suppressing material information as regard to the criminal case pending as on 25.3.2015 date on which attestation form was filled up signed and submitted. The fourteen days' time was granted to submit reply to the Patna Bench show cause notice and reply dated 25.11.2016 submitted by the applicant. The applicant neither submitted material details in the antecedents form nor cured the defect in the form before issuance of notice dated 25.11.2016. The opportunity of hearing accordance with the rules Rule 301 of IREC-I read with terms and conditions of appointment letters and rules of railway board was given to the applicant, heard before issuing order dated 13.02.2017, thereafter decision taken by impugned orders accordance with the principles of natural Justice and rules applicable to the temporary employee of Railways.
43. Therefore, judgment rendered in case of Neeraj Kumar versus Union of India (Supra) will not be applicable in the case on hand as there is material difference in the facts of the two cases.
44. Accordingly the issue is decided. It is the trite Law that it is the prerogative of an employer to consider the antecedents of a candidate and in present case the employer in his own wisdom has decided not to consider the applicant for appointment on suppression of material information in the attestation form and on account of pendency of a Criminal case against him at time of filling up the attestation form dated 25.3.2015. Undisputedly the applicant answered in writing no criminal cases pending whereas applicant was convicted under Section 302 of IPC for life Imprisonment in year 2010 and as on 25.03.2015 was convicted person. The applicant suppressed the information as to criminal case and ignored warning given in clause no. 11 of appointment order dt. 13.03.2015 and warning no. 1,2 & 3 and 12 in the attestation form dated 25.03.2015 stipulates that furnishing of false information suppression of any ::17:: OA 332/2022/CAT/PATNA BENCH material information in the attestation form would lead to disqualification of the applicant.
45. The appointing authority found applicant not suitable to the post on account of the material suppression of his criminal antecedents. The impugned orders have been passed on account of suppression of material information and obtaining appointment order fraudulently having bearing his continuity in the service and not due to conviction in the Sessions Trial no. 10/2007, hence acquittal has no bearing on the merit of the case.
46. We do not find any infirmity or irregularity in the impugned orders dated 13.02.2017 and orders dated 20/22.1.2020 and 16.2.2022 and interference in the present Original application is declined.
CONCLUSION Patna Bench 47. We have already analysed in detail the issue in light of aforesaid analysis.
Accordingly, we decide the issue against the applicant. The impugned orders in the present OA are upheld being justified on ground of suppression of material in the Attestation Form and same do not suffer from any infirmity, remain unassailable and applicant is not entitled to the relief sought in the O.A.
48. Resultantly, the original application being devoid of merit accordingly dismissed.
49. There shall be no order as to cost.
50. As a sequel thereof, pending miscellaneous application(s), if any shall also stand disposed of.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ajay Pratap Singh) (Sunil Kumar Sinha)
Judicial Member, Administrative Member
sj/-