Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Vijesh Kumar vs Chief Secretary on 7 July, 2014
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi OA 260/2013 with OA 261/2013, OA 262/2013, OA 279/2013, OA 280/2013, OA 281/2013, OA 284/2013, OA 285/2013, OA 286/2013, OA 311/2013, OA 346/2013, OA 347/2013, OA 348/2013, OA 349/2013, OA 350/2013, OA 368/2013, OA 369/2013, OA 373/2013, OA 374/2013, OA 392/2013, OA 393/2013, OA 394/2013, OA 395/2013, OA 396/2013, OA 397/2013, OA 412/2013, OA 519/2013, and OA 525/2013. Order Reserved on:12.05.2014 Order pronounced on 07.07.2014 Honble Shri V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J) Honble Shri V. N. Gaur, Member (A) OA 260/2013: Vijesh Kumar, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Kewal Singh, R/o Village & PO Makrana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 261/2013: Arun Mann, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Hawa Singh, R/o Village & PO Lawa Kalan, Tehsil Bahadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 262/2013: Pardeep Kumar, Age 29 years, S/o Shri Dalbeer Singh, R/o Village Bajaana Kalan, Distt. Sonepat, Tehsil Gunuar, PO Bajana Khurd, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 279/2013: Naveen Kumar, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Chet Ram, R/o H.No.434/31, Gali No.2, New Court Road, Ashok Vihar, Sonepat-131001 (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 280/2013: Harish Kumar, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Daya Nand, R/o Village Bajitpur, PO Nangal Thakran, Delhi-110039. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 281/2013: Krishan, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Raghubir Singh, R/o Village Tewari, Post Office Bajana Khurd, Distt. Sonepat (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 284/2013: Ashok Kumar, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Ramher, R/o VPO Bakheta, Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 285/2013: Sandeep, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Randhir Singh, R/o Village Turakhpur, Post Office Mandhora, Distt. Sonepat (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 286/2013: Devender, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Jagmohan, R/o Village & PO Khaira, Najafgarh, New Delhi-110043. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 311/2013: Surender Kumar, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Ran Dhan, R/o VPO Nuna Majra, Distt. Jhajjar, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 346/2013: Vikram, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Karan Singh, R/o Village & PO Bajana Khurd, Tehsil Anuar, Distt. Sonepat-13101 (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 347/2013: Dhan Ram, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Nasib Singh, R/o Village & PO-Nizampur, Delhi-110 081. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 348/2013: Ravinder Singh, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Mehtab Singh, R/o Village & PO-Nahra, Distt.-Sonepat, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 349/2013: Manoj Kumar, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Mahender Singh, R/o Village & PO-Bhainsru Khurd, Distt.-Rohtak, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 350/2013: Ravi Saroha, Age 30 years, S/o Shri Ranvir Singh, R/o E-126, Sector-14, 2nd Floor, Rohini, Parshant Vihar, Delhi-110 084. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 368/2013: Chander Parkash, Age 30 years, S/o Shri Diwan Singh, R/o Village-Kulashi, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh, Distt.-Jhajjar (Haryana). .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 369/2013: Harender Singh, Age 34 years, S/o Shri Rajbeer Singh, R/o Village-Sanoth, Narela, Delhi-40. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 373/2013: Rakesh, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Samay Singh, R/o H.No.-255, Shahabad Daulat Pur, Delhi-42. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 374/2013: Mukesh Kumar, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Virender Singh, R/o H.No.511, Village-Bajitpur, PO-Nangal Thakran, Delhi-39. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 392/2013: Satish Kumar, Age 30 years, S/o Shri Satbir Singh, R/o Village & PO Bajana Khurd, Tehsil Gunuar, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 393/2013: Rajeev, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Suresh Chander, R/o Village & PO Sankhol, Distt.-Jhajjar, Teh.-Bahadurgarh, Haryana-124507. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 394/2013: Dinesh Kumar, Age 28 years, S/o Shri Bhoop Singh, R/o Village Makrana, Tehsil Charkhi Dadri, Distt. Bhiwani (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 395/2013: Narender, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Dharam Pal, R/o H.No.1051/10, Gali No.2, Rishi Colony, Near New Sabji Mandi, Sonepat-131001 (HR). .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 396/2013: Ravinder Panwar, Age 29 years, S/o Shri Vijay Pal Singh, R/o Village & PO-Sabga, District-Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 397/2013: Narhari, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Bhajan Lal, R/o Behind Aashirwad Banquet Hall, Nodal (Palwal), Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 412/2013: Shri Bhagwan, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Ramender Singh, R/o Village Rasoi, P.O. RAI, Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. .. Applicant VERSUS 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. The Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. .. Respondents OA 519/2013: Krishan, Age 30 years, S/o Shri Hari Singh, R/o Shidipur, Lowa. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents OA 525/2013: Vikram Singh, Age 27 years, S/o Shri Satbir Singh, R/o CB-49D, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi. .. Applicant VERSUS Govt. of NCT of Delhi through 1. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 2. Pr. Secretary (Home), Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Delhi Secretariate, I.P. Estate, New Delhi. 3. Director, Delhi Fire Service, Fire Headquarter, Connaught Circus, New Delhi. 4. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board through its Secretary, FC-18, Institutional Area, Karkardooma, Delhi. .. Respondents Present: Shri S.K. Gupta, counsel for applicant (s) in OA Nos. 260/2013, 261/2013, 262/2013, 279/2013, 280/2013, 281/2013, 284/2013, 285/2013, 286/2013, 311/2013, 394/2013, 519/2013 and 525/2013. Shri Sachin Chauhan with Shri J.P. Tiwari, counsel for applicant (s) in OA Nos. 346/2013, 347/2013, 348/2013, 349/2013, 350/2013, 368/2013, 369/2013, 373/2013, 374/2013, 392/2013, 393/2013, 395/2013, 396/2013, 397/2013 & 412/2013. Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi, counsel for respondents in OA Nos. 260/2013, 261/2013, 262/2013, 279/2013, 280/2013, 284/2013, 285/2013, 286/2013, 346/2013, 347/2013, 348/2013, 349/2013, 350/2013, 368/2013 & 369/2013. Shri B.N.P. Pathak, counsel for respondents in OA Nos. 281/2013, 311/2013, 373/2013, 374/2013, 392/2013, 393/2013, 394/2013, 395/2013, 396/2013, 397/2013, 412/2013, 519/2013 and 525/2013. O R D E R (Common) By V. Ajay Kumar, Member (J):
The subject matter of all these OAs (batch matter) is one and the same and hence, as requested by the learned counsel for the respective parties, all the above OAs were heard together and this common order is being passed. However, for the sake of convenience, the facts from OA No.261/2013 have been taken for consideration.
2. At the request of the 3rd Respondent Delhi Fire Service (DFS, in short), an Advertisement for selection to the post of Fire Operators vide Post Code No.015/2007 was issued by the 4th Respondent-Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB, in short), in the year 2007. On his selection, the applicant was appointed to the post of Fire Operator in DFS. The DSSSB, before sending the dossiers of the applicant to DFS, verified the genuineness of the Driving License. Thereafter, the applicant was admitted to training course in fire fighting for the post of Fire Operator in the month of February, 2009, along with others. After completion of the training period, he was allowed to join the post of Fire Operator.
3. At the time of joining of the applicant as Fire Operator, a communication was sent to Regional Transport Officer, Agra (in short, RTO, Agra) which issued the Driving License of the applicant and, in turn, the RTO, Agra verified and authenticated the Driving License of the applicant and others, vide Letter No. 146/DL/Satyapan/09 dated 21.01.2009.
4. Later, on the basis of certain controversial reports, the matter was inquired from RTO, Agra and the RTO, Agra, vide its letters dated 23.12.2009 and 18.10.2010 verified the Driving License of the applicant and others.
5. However, as the suspicion is not cleared completely, a team of two officers, namely, Shri S.K.Thakur and Shri Rajesh were deputed to RTO, Agra along with all relevant papers, for proper verification of the Driving Licenses of the applicant and others, and thereupon, the RTO, Agra vide its letter dated 15.11.2010, informed that the Driving Licenses referred for verification are forged and there was no order of the competent authority for issuance of the same and for issuing the said Driving Licenses, the necessary fees has not been deposited in the office and the addresses mentioned are incomplete.
6. The said letter dated 15.11.2010 reads follows:
Office of Regional Transport Officer, Agra Region, Agra Letter No.273/DL-Verification/Fire Service/10 dated 15.11.2010 To Shri R.C.Sharma Xxxxxxx Sub: In relation to verification of driving license.
Kindly refer to your letter No.F.2/Rectt./Admn./FO/DFS/Pt-I/2361 dated 03.09.2010 in which, the verification of 81 driving licences has been sought for from this office. All the driving licences have been shown to be issued from Transport Office, Agra.
In this regard, it is to inform you that as per the Cash Branch, no fee has been deposited for issuing the aforesaid heavy vehicle. All the driving licences are entered of the year 2007 and were seized by the Inquiry Committee. This record of this office was seized from the possession of Sh. Sita Ram, the former employee of this office and against whom, some evidence has been found by the Investigating Committee to that extent Sh. Verma without the permission of the competent authority and its order and without depositing the fee has issued the driving licences under his own hand writing.
After the investigation of the aforesaid Committee, after registering the FIR by the Agra Police he was sent to jail and thereupon, Transport Commissioner, U.P., Lucknow had placed him under suspension. As per the list enclosed of the driving licences, these are forged because of the following reasons:
For issuing the driving licences there is no order of the competent authority. For issuing the driving licences, the necessary fee has not been deposited in the office and without depositing the necessary fee no licence can be issued. As per the address shown in the licence holder, it is incomplete neither the house number nor the block number has been shown and because of this reason in the absence of complete address those are not completely verified. Neither the fee for issuing the licence nor for heavy vehicle licences has been deposited. In this regard, it is, requested that after treating that all the licences are forged. The necessary action may be taken. For other information, you can contact to telephone number 0562-2600793 or 2601790. Encl.: As referred to above.
Yours faithfully Sd/-
Licencing Authority Asstt. Regional Transport Officer
7. Basing on the aforesaid letter dated 15.11.2010, a Show Cause Notice (SCN) dated 4.5.2011 was issued to the applicant and after considering the representation of the applicant made thereto, the services of the applicant were terminated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 [in short, CCS (TS) Rules],vide notice dated 30.08.2011. In the similar circumstances, the services of others were also terminated.
8. The OA No.3302/2011 and batch, filed by the applicant and others, questioning the aforesaid termination orders dated 30.08.2011, were disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal vide its common Judgement dated 12.10.2011 and the operative portion of the same reads as follows:
16. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents could have proceeded against the applicants in one of the following three manners, namely, (1) to proceed against him in regular departmental inquiry in case his services are proposed to be terminated for having committed a misconduct rendering him unsuitable in retention in service; (2) to cancel the applicants appointment on the ground of disqualification under the terms and conditions of employment; and (3) under the Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 in case of temporary servant. The respondents have preferred to proceed with the 3rd option under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 but in the process have committed an infirmity of non-supply of reports referred to in the show cause notice issued to the applicant which has vitiated their action in law.
17. The show cause notice refers to two divergent reports, one such information is dated 21.01.2009 indicates authenticity of the driving license whereas the letter dated 15.11.2010 discloses the contrary information i.e. the driving license has been found to be fake and forged. Admittedly, the applicant has not been supplied both letters of 21.01.2009 and 15.11.2010. Surely, the non supply of the copies of these two letters/documents has prejudiced the applicant, so much so he has been disadvantaged to defend himself properly. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that they should have been given both the letters, more specifically, the letter dated 15.11.2010 received from the concerned Authority and on receipt of their response apt decision could have been taken. The very fact that the respondents have not given the applicants a copy of the confidential letter dated 15-11-2010 to show their driving licenses as fake ones has, of course, denied them the opportunity in the sense they have stated that driving license copies were earlier authenticated by the Agra Transport Authority. Both cannot be correct, one of those two will surely be correct. Then, which one is correct can be properly decided by the third respondent only if the applicant can be supplied with both information and copies of relevant letters / documents, receive the response to decide the controversy. To the extent of non supply of reports referred to in the show cause notice issued to the applicant has prejudiced him. The applicant succeeds in this respect only.
18. For the reasons stated above and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned orders in terminating the temporary service of the applicants are quashed and set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants forthwith. The respondents shall, however, be at liberty to place them under suspension till they take decision in the matter after providing them the copies of all documents referred to in the show cause notice and more specifically the confidential report dated 15-11-2010, and after getting the reply from the applicants the competent authority is directed to pass speaking and reasoned order in each case. If the applicants feel aggrieved by such decision of the respondents, it will be open for them to challenge the same in appropriate proceedings as and when such occasion arises and as may be advised.
9. In pursuance of the aforesaid orders, the respondents have issued Show Cause Notices dated 04.04.2012 by duly enclosing copy of the adverse report dated 15.11.2010 of the RTO, Agra, and also other relevant documents. After considering the representations made thereto, the 3rd Respondent-DFS vide their impugned Order dated 16.01.2013, terminated the services of the applicant under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965. The said impugned termination order reads as follows:
GOVERNMENT OF NATIONAL CAPITAL TERRITORY OF DELHI HEADQUARTERS: DELHI FIRE SERVICE: NEW DELHI-110 001.
No.F.2/Rectt./Admn/F.O./DFS/Part File-1/312 dated 16.01.2013 ORDER In compliance of Honble Central Administrative Tribunal (Principal Bench) order dated 12.10.2011 passed in O.A.No.3310/2011 Sh. Arun Maan V/s Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors., a copy of the adverse report received from the Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Agra vide letter No.273/D.L.-Satyapan (Fire Service)/2010 dated 15.11.2010 alongwith the following additional documents were supplied to Sh. Arun Maan, F.O.-8/63, C.C.Fire Station through HOO, Headquarters, vide show cause notice No.F2/Rectt./Admin/FO/DFS/Pt.File1/7/dated 04/04/2012 to show cause as to why his services may not be terminated since his driving license was found fake as per verification report received from Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Agra vide letter dated 15.11.2010.
Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 19.05.2008 Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 24.06.2008 Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 30.12.2008 Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 21.01.2009 Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 06.02.2009 Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 21.08.2009 Letter No. xxxxxxxx dated 03.09.2010 In response to the said Show Cause Notice dated 04.04.2012, Sh. Arun Maan, FO-8/63 has submitted his reply on 30/04/2012. His reply has been considered by the undersigned. He has stated that non-deposition of fee in the records of the Transport Deptt. Agra was not his fault and he has also contended that his name exists in the relevant records of Agra Transport Authority. Besides this, he got his Driving License renewed from the same authority. All these pleas are not acceptable and the fact remains that his Heavy Motor Vehicle Driving License which was submitted at the time of applying to the post of Fire-Operator, is not verified and stated to be fake as per the report dated 15.11.2010 received from Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Agra which is the license issuing who had initially issued License to Sh. Arun Maan. As the issuing authority itself has stated that the said license is to be treated as fake as fee was not deposited, the subsequent renewal by the same authority carries no meaning. It cannot convert the fake license into a valid/genuine license.
Hence, nothing new has been stated in reply by the applicant, which can prove that his HMV D/L is genuine, valid and authentic. Therefore, relying upon the final report No.273/D.L. Satyapan/ (Fire Service)/2010 dated 15.11.2010 of Licensing Authority, Transport Department, Agra, the undersigned has come to conclusion that Sh. Arun Maan, FO-8/63 does not psssess a genuine and valid HMV Driving License, which he submitted at the time of applying for the post of Fire Operator (Post Code-015/07) as per requirement of Recruitment Rules for the said post. Therefore, his service is terminated under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 with immediate effect.
Sd/-
(A.K.Sharma) Director Delhi Fire Service Sh. Arun Maan, xxx xxxxxxxx
10. Though this Tribunal while disposing of the OA No.3302/2011 and batch by order dated 12.10.2011, while quashing the earlier termination orders dated 30.08.2011, given liberty to the respondents to place the applicant under suspension till they take decision in the matter after providing them all documents, including the report dated 15.11.2010, the respondents have not placed the applicant and others under suspension and accordingly they are working as Fire Operators as on today.
11. The applicant and others filed the present batch of OAs questioning the identical orders dated 16.01.2013 terminating their services under sub rule (1) of Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965.
12. Heard both sides and have gone through the pleadings on record.
13. The learned counsel appearing for the applicants, inter alia, raised the following grounds:
The respondents while passing the impugned termination orders have not considered the various grounds raised in the reply to the Show Cause Notice.
Though the earlier termination order dated 30.08.2011 which was quashed by this Tribunal in OA No.3302/2011 and batch, is a termination simplicitor and does not carry any stigma, but the present impugned order is stigmatic as it was held that the Driving License of the applicant and others were fake, and they obtained employment by producing a fake Driving License.
As per Rule 5 of CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, before terminating the services, the employee is entitled for one month advance notice or pay in lieu of the same and as the respondents passed the impugned termination order, without complying with the said condition, the same is liable to be quashed.
The CCS (TS) Rules, 1965 prescribes specific proformas in Form-I and II for issuance of notice of termination and order of termination respectively, under Rule 5, but the respondents have not followed the said proformas, and accordingly, the impugned termination orders are liable to be set aside.
14. The learned counsel for the applicants, to buttress their contentions, placed reliance on the following Judgements:
a) Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar v. State of U.P. and Ors., (1971) 1 S.C.R. 201.
b) Smt. Kusum Gupta alias Kusum Bansal v. Haryana State Small Industries & Export Corpn., Chandigarh, (1986) 3 SCC 506
c) Dipti Prakash Banerjee v. Satvendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences, Calcutta & Others, JT 1999(1) S.C. 396.
d) State of Uttar Pradesh and Another v. Ram Vinai Sinha, (2010) 15 SCC 305.
e) Satwati Deswal v. State of Haryana and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 126.
f) State Bank of India and Others v. Palak Modi and Another, (2013) 3 SCC 607.
g) Satish Rathi v. State of Haryana and Others [Civil Writ Petition No.20569 of 2011 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, decided on 21.01.2014].
h) Constable Sandeep No.620/PTC v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Others (OA 2137/2009 of PB, CAT) dated 31.01.2011.
i) Mrs. Rubi (Chandra) Dutta v. M/s United India Insurance Co. Ltd. - CA No.2588/2011 Page 123 of OA 346/2013.
15. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents would mainly submit that the facts and law involved in all these cases are identical and the applicants in this batch of OAs, were earlier approached this Tribunal by filing OA Nos.3302/2011 and batch and successfully questioned the earlier termination orders dated 30.08.2011. Some of the applicants in the said batch filed OA No.807/2013 and batch and a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal, after elaborately considering the facts and law, dismissed the said OAs and refused to interfere with the identical termination orders dated 16.01.2013, by its common Judgement dated 19.02.2014. It is further submitted that since the facts and law in this batch of OAs are identical and the impugned termination orders in this batch of OAs are also identical to that of the impugned orders in the aforesaid OA No.807/2013 and batch and hence, the present batch of OAs are also liable to be dismissed, for parity of reasons.
16. The respondents would further submit this Tribunal quashed the earlier termination order only on the sole ground that the adverse report dated 15.11.2010 was not furnished to the applicants before passing the earlier termination order. The present impugned order is passed in pursuance of the directions issued by this Tribunal in OA No.3302/2011 and batch, which has attained finality as the applicants have not questioned the same, before any higher forum. This Tribunal specifically directed the respondents vide its common Judgement dated 12.10.2011 in OA No.3302/2011 and batch, after furnishing the adverse report dated 15.11.2010 and after getting the reply from the applicants to pass a speaking and reasoned order and hence, the applicants cannot contend now that since the respondents given the reasons for their termination, the same casts stigma on them.
17. It is further submitted that it is the specific case of the respondents that one Shri Sita Ram, a former employee of the RTO, Agra, without depositing the required fee and without there being any order for issuance of the Driving License by the Competent Authority has issued the Driving Licenses under his own hand writing and after registering an FIR against him by the Agra Police, he was arrested and suspended from service. Since the Driving Licenses produced by the applicants were all fake, fabricated and forged by the said Sita Ram against whom departmental and criminal action is initiated for his omissions and commissions and were result of the said fraud, and since fraud vitiates everything, the applicants cannot claim any right of any sort basing on the said fake Driving Licenses.
18. It is further submitted that the RTO, Agra is the competent authority either to issue or to verify a Driving License. Once the said authority itself categorically by its report dated 15.11.2010, stated that the Driving Licenses of the applicants are fake and due to the fraud committed by one of its employee namely, Shri Sita Ram, the respondents have no other alternative except to take action in pursuance of the said report. The OAs are liable to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary party, i.e., the RTO, Agra as the applicants failed to implead the said party as respondents to the OAs in spite of the specific objection raised by the respondents.
19. Firstly, none of the counsels appearing for the applicants denied the fact that the facts and law involved in OA No.807/2013 and batch are similar and identical to the facts and law involved in this batch of OAs. It is also not denied that the earlier O.As filed by the applicants in OA No.807/2013 and batch were also disposed of jointly along with the earlier O.As filed by the applicants herein vide common Judgement dated 12.10.2011 in OA 3302/2011 and batch. However, it is submitted that the facts were not correctly placed before the Bench which dismissed the OA No.807/2013 and batch, and hence, this batch of OAs are to be decided independently basing on the pleadings now advanced.
20. Before examining this contention of the applicants, it is necessary to consider the Judgement of a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the said OA No.807/2013 and batch. Relevant paragraphs of the said judgment read as follows:-
3. The main grounds urged in OA No.807/2013 are, namely, that the appeal filed by the applicant has not been disposed of and that the impugned order dated 16.01.2013 suffers from vice of non-consideration of the relevant factors. The Two- Member Committee constituted by the Respondents which gave its report on 15.11.2010 never summoned the applicant to put up his defence. The finding of the Two-Member Committee was not supplied to him and he was thus unable to defend himself properly. Due procedure for holding the disciplinary proceeding has not been followed. The applicant had been appointed vide letter dated 24.06.2008 as Fire Operator according to which the probation period of two years came to an end on 26.6.2010 and, therefore, the respondents did not take any action during this period of probation. The respondents after the judgment of the Tribunal were not justified in reopening the entire issue. The report of the Agra Transport Authority dated 15.11.2010 only stated that due procedure was not adopted by the concerned Licensing Authority while issuing the 81driving licenses. There is no such evidence that the applicant had procured the driving license fraudulently. Malice has also been attributed to the respondents.
xx x x xx x x x x xxxxxxxxxxx
12. We have also perused the Office Order dated 03.09.2010 (Annexure-J) by which two Officers were deputed to visit the office of Regional Transport Officer, Motor Vehicle Department, Transport Nagar, Agra in connection with the verification of driving license of 81 Fire Operators. This Two Member Committee gave its report on 15.11.2010, a copy of which is placed at Annexure J-I. The report states that all the 81 Driving Licenses should be treated as `fake and that further action should be taken in the matter. This conclusion is based on reasons that the requisite fee had not been deposited, there was no approval of the competent authority to issue the license, the address of the license holder was incomplete because of which proper verification of the address was not possible and that the fee for issuing the license for its endorsement had not been deposited. Moreover, the findings of the Two-Member Committee were such that it could not be ignored in as much as they were based on facts detected during verification.
21. The Coordinate Bench, having observed that the applicants therein were still on probation and in view of the fact that their Driving Licenses were fake, held that there is no irregularity in the impugned termination order.
22. It is true that some of the grounds raised by the learned counsel for the applicants in this batch, were neither raised nor answered by the Coordinate Bench while deciding the OA No.807/2013 and batch. However, once, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the respondents that the applicants neither questioned the finding of the RTO, Agra, that their Driving Licenses are fake nor proved that they obtained the same in a proper and valid method, none of their grounds have no legs to stand, since no one can claim any right basing on a document alleged to have been obtained/issued under fraudulent circumstances.
23. In view of the above seminal finding, i.e., the applicants have not questioned the Report dated 15.11.2010 of the RTO, Agra till date, wherein it was stated that the driving licences of the applicants were forged and not issued by the Competent Authority and no fee has been deposited in that office for issuance of the same and against one of its employee Shri Sita Ram, who was responsible for this fraud, departmental and criminal action was initiated, and the impugned action of the respondents is only a consequential action to the said Report dated 15.11.2010, and that they have no other alternative except to accept the same, unless the same is declared invalid and not binding on them by any Authority or Court, and also in view of the judgement in OA No.807/2013 and batch, we do not find any merit in the present OAs. For the same reasons, the grounds now raised and the Judgements relied on, in support of the said grounds, all being relating to the consequential termination basing on the unquestioned Report dated 15.11.2010, need not be gone into.
24. Hence, for the aforesaid reasons, and also for the parity of reasons mentioned in OA No.807/2013 and batch, dated 19.02.2014, we do not find any merit in these OAs and accordingly, the same are dismissed. However, this order shall not preclude the applicants from questioning the Report dated 15.11.2010 of the RTO, Agra, if so advised, in accordance with law. No order as to costs.
(V. N. Gaur) (V. Ajay Kumar) Member (A) Member (J) /nsnrvak/