Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Aman Kumar Son Of Sh. Joginder Singh vs Union Of India on 11 March, 2011
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
O.A. No.374/HR/2010
Date of order:11.3.2011
Coram: Honble Mr. Justice K.S.Rathore,Member (J)
Honble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A)
Aman Kumar son of Sh. Joginder Singh, r/o village and PO Narnaul, Tehsil Jagadhri, District Ymunanagar, Haryana, otherwise, employee with Northern Railways as Gate Man at Barara, with the Divisional office, Ambala Cantt.
Applicant
(By : Shri G.S.Ghuman, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, through General Manager, NR, New Delhi.
2. The Divisional Railways Manager, Northern Railways, Ambala Cantt. Haryana.
(By: Mr. G.S.Bajwa, Advocate)
O R D E R
Honble Mr. Khushiram, Member (A):
In this case the applicant was convicted by the criminal court under Section 376 on the basis of an FIR lodged against him on 15.9.97. Applicant was working as a Gateman with the respondents from 12.6.95. On completion of the trial, applicant was awarded 7 years rigorous imprisonment + Rs. 500/- as fine. The appeal against the conviction was dismissed by the appellate court on 8.1.2004. Applicant was picked up by the police from duty on in compliance with the court orders and sent to jail. The respondents instituted inquiry against him on 12-6-07 and on the basis of the report at Annexure A-4, his services were terminated w.e.f. 6.8.2008.
The applicant has alleged that the inquiry was held behind his back. He was lodged in jail. He could not get proper opportunity to defend himself and thus the impugned order of termination are arbitrary and illegal.
The respondents have filed reply, stating that applicant sentenced to 7 years rigorous imprisonment by the trial court vide order dated 20.3.99. On filing the appeal by him before the Honble High Court, the sentence was suspended vide order dated 4.2.2000. However, later on vide judgment dated 8.1.2004 the conviction was upheld and the appeal was dismissed. Therefore, the applicant is snot entitled to any relief. It has been further stated by the respondents that the applicant has misled the court, stating that he was not given any opportunity of hearing before passing the impugned order dated 5.1.2009. It is also stated that the applicant had not informed the authorities that a criminal case was pending against him and order of conviction had been passed by the Trial Court. He also did not disclose the fact that his appeal had been dismissed . The respondents came to know from the legal notice dated 11.6.09 that his appeal had been dismissed. The order of rejection of his appeal has not been challenged by him in the apex court. Since he continuously absented himself from duty after conviction and inspite of several notices did not turn up, inquiry was held against him and the order Annexure A-5 was passed thereafter.
We have heard the learned counsel for the applicant who stated that the order of termination has been passed behind the back of the applicant, which is not sustainable. Moreover, the impugned order has been passed on the basis of proved unauthorized absence and the applicant was never associated with the inquiry, if any.
Learned counsel for the respondents could not explain as to why the fact of his conviction has not been brought on record.
We have given deep consideration to the issue involved and have perused the records placed before us. Admittedly, the applicant has been convicted for a heinous crime of rape under Section 376 of the IPC and his appeal has been dismissed by the appellate court (High Court). In spite of this, the respondents have not brought these facts on record while passing the order of dismissal against him. Therefore, the order passed against him for having remained unauthorisedly absent from duty is not sustainable for the reason that applicant was not afforded any opportunity to defend himself and thus the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case. The impugned order at Annexure A-5 is thus held to be not sustainable and is quashed and set aside. The respondents will however be at liberty to pass appropriate orders taking into consideration the facts of the case in accordance with law. We feel that in the light of the fact that the order passed by the respondents does not make any mention of the heinous crime committed by the applicant and due to setting aside of order of termination of the applicant from service, the applicant will be entitled to some payments etc. after the date of his conviction and dismissal of his appeal by the Honble High Court, the same be recovered from the officer who has passed the termination order with taking into consideration these facts. OA stands disposed of accordingly. No costs.
(KHUSHIRAM) (Justice K.S.Rathore)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
Dated:
rk
2