Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Bonugu Venkata Mani Prasad vs M/O Defence on 21 January, 2019
1
IN THE CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
HYDERABAD
O.A/20/01150/2013 Date of order : 21.01.2019
Between:
BONUGU VENKATA MANI PRASAD,
S/o Satya Narayana Patrudu,,
Aged 30 years,
Occupation: Fire Engine Driver,
(under the orders of termination),
O/o The Chief Staff Officer (P&A),
Headquarters Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam,
R/o D.No.1874, Cheepurvalasa,
Kothavalasa Manda, Vizianagaram Distt.
Applicant
AND
1. Union of India represented by
Chief of Naval Staff,
IHQ of Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Naval Headquarters, Sena Bhavan,
New Delhi,
2. The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam,
3. The Chief Staff Officer (P&A),
Headquarters Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
... Respondents
Counsel for the applicant : Mr.KRKV PRASAD
Counsel for the respondents : Mr.K.Rajtha,
Sr.CGSC
CORAM:
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO MEMBER (J)
THE HON'BLE MR. B V SUDHAKAR, MEMBER (A)
2
ORAL ORDER
(PER HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R KANTHA RAO, MEMBER (J) Heard Mr. KRKV Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mrs. K.Rajitha, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the respondents.
2. The brief facts, necessary for disposal of the present OA, may be stated as follows:
The applicant, in response to the notification for the post of Engine Driver Gr.II, applied, appeared for the written examination, and cleared the written examination. He was appointed as Fire Engine Driver, vide order dated 20.12.2012. He was performing the duties with effect from 21.12.2012. The respondents, suddenly served an order dated 25.7.2013 which indicates that under the provisions of sub-rule(1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965, the applicant has been terminated from service. The present OA is filed challenging the said order of termination.
3. From the reply affidavit filed by the respondents, it appears that the applicant was required to submit attestation form and some other documents along with his application and in the attestation form, he omitted to furnish certain information relating to his involvement in criminal cases. Therefore, his services were terminated without notice under the provisions of sub-rule(1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. The copies of the attestation forms are available on record. The note appended to the attestation forms obviously indicates that the applicant shall disclose the entire information within his 3 knowledge and he shall not resort to any suppression thereof. To the Columns, "Have you ever been arrested; Have you ever been prosecuted; Have you ever been kept under detention; Have you ever been bound down", the applicant ticked "No". However, the crucial aspect in this context is that the applicant filed a certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station, which shows that he was involved in Cr.No.76/2011 u/Sec 323, 324, 506(2) r/w 34 IPC of Kothavalasa wherein he was acquitted U/Sec 248(1) Cr.P.C. on 19.03.2012 by the JFCM, Kothavalasa PS and the Cr.No.172/11 U/Sec 447, 427, 506 r/w 34 IPC of Kothavalasa Police Station was referred as Mistake of Fact vide Rc.NO13/12 dated 26.11.2012 and was accepted by the JFCM, Kothavalasa.
4. The certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station which was filed by the applicant along with the attestation Forms and other documents, is the crucial document to examine the fact as to whether the applicant is guilty of submission of false information or suppression of any factual information. If the applicant wanted to suppress the fact of his involvement in criminal case, he would not have filed the certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station which categorically mentions of his involvement in the criminal cases. Therefore, it is clear that the applicant has not applied his mind while ticking as "No" in the attestation form, or he might have thought that he can do so as he was acquitted in one case and in another case, it has been referred as mistake of fact. The respondents, in our view, acted in a mechanical way without examining the fact that the applicant filed the certificate issued by the Inspector of Police, Kothavalasa Police Station along with the attestation form disclosing about his involvement in the cases. If the authorities thoroughly examined the fact, they would 4 have understood that the applicant is not guilty of any suppression of the fact. The cases in which the applicant was involved are trivial in character. In one case he was acquitted and in another case, the Police, after thorough investigation, referred it as a mistake of fact. The authorities ought to have taken into consideration all the above aspects while passing the impugned order.
5. In view of the reasons stated hereinabove, the impugned order Ref:CE/2001/RECT/CMD/12, dated 25.07.2013 is set-aside. The 2nd respondent is directed to examine the facts and circumstances of the case which are mentioned in the foregoing paragraphs, and consider the case of the applicant for issuing appointment order having regard to the reasons stated hereinabove.
6. Consequently, the OA is allowed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(B V SUDHAKAR) (JUSTICE R. KANTHA RAO)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
vsn