Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Nagendra Singh Baghel vs M/O Railways on 28 June, 2023
1 OA No.200/785/2018
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/785/2018
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 28th day of June, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Nagendra Singh Baghel, S/o Shri Dharmendra Singh Baghel, aged about 25
years, Occupation - unemployed, R/o Village Sonara, P.O. Belhata, Tehsil
- Raghurajnagar, District Satna (M.P.) -Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri S.P. Mishra)
Versus
1. Western Central Railway, Jabalpur, Zoe Jabalpur through its General
Manager - 482001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel Cell), Office of Divisional
Railway Manager, Bhopal - 462010.
3. Sub Divisional Officer/Land Acquisition Officer (Revenue), Tahsil
Raghuraj Nagar, District Satna (M.P.) - 485115 -Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Praveen Namdeo)
(Date of reserving order 17.04.2023)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
The applicant is aggrieved by communication dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure A-9), whereby his claim for appointment under the Railways has been rejected on the ground that his acquittal under Section 294, 323, 427 Page 1 of 9 2 OA No.200/785/2018 and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC was on the basis of compromise.
2. Brief facts of the case are that land of the applicant bearing Khasra No.239/4, Area 0.050 hectares, situated in Village Karhi Pawai was acquired by the respondents for constructions of Lalitpur-Khajuraho-Panna- Satna Railway line project. In pursuance to the scheme of the Railways, the applicant submitted his application for providing employment assistance to him. Thereafter, on 09.11.2017 (Annexure A-3), the applicant was called to appear before the screening committee along with the requisite documents. Subsequently, on 28.11.2017 (Annexure A-4), an offer of appointment was issued in favour of the applicant and also to complete certain formalities before his joining. The applicant submits that while filling the Attestation Form (Annexure A-5), he has duly mentioned in Clause 12 that a Crime No.619/2016 was registered against him at Police Station Kolganwa for the offences under Section 294, 323, 427 and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and he has been acquitted on the basis of compromise vide order dated 09.12.2017 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna. However, vide the impugned communication dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure A-9), the respondents have denied to appoint him on the ground that his acquittal was Page 2 of 9 3 OA No.200/785/2018 based on compromise. The applicant, thereafter, made representation requesting the authorities to provide him appointment. But the same failed to evoke any favourable response.
3. Response/reply has been filed by the respondents resisting the claim of the applicant on the following grounds:
3.1 As per Rule 101 of IREM Vol-I, the Appointing Authority should satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of a person to be appointed are such as to not render him unsuitable for appointment to Government service in accordance with the instructions of Railway Board issued from time to time. In view of the aforesaid provision, the authorities have considered the matter in detail and rightly rejected his claim. 3.2 Merely disclosure of information does not indicate the good antecedents of the applicant. The applicant was prosecuted under grave Sections of IPC and was acquitted on compromise and the same cannot said to be honorable acquittal.
3.3 The applicant cannot claim as a matter of right to be appointed when he was prosecuted under the grave sections of IPC and acquittal on the basis of compromise.
Page 3 of 9 4 OA No.200/785/2018
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant argued that the applicant has not concealed the fact of his involvement in the criminal case and the case did not even go to trial as the applicant stood absolve of the charges through on compromise. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the following decisions:
(i) Prem Singh Choudhary vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi and others, 2013 SCC OnLine CAT 1721;
(ii) Dataram Yadav vs. State of M.P. and others, 2017 (1) MPLJ 238;
(ii) Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is the employer who can adjudge the suitability of a candidate and since the applicant was prosecuted for grave charges, the employer has not found him suitable for the post offered to him.
7. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter. Page 4 of 9 5 OA No.200/785/2018
8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 has reviewed the entire case law on the subject, i.e. the jurisdiction of the employer to adjudge eligibility/suitability in the matter of selection for appointment to a post in the event of suppression of material information or false information in the application form as to conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case and in the event where the employee has made a declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal trial or where the offence is of trivial nature ultimately resulting into acquittal based on compromise prior to submission of application for appointment. In Para 38 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held comprehensively and inclusively various nature of eventualities in the aforesaid context and further explained the extent and scope of jurisdiction of the authority to deal with them while taking a decision for the eligibility/suitability of a candidate for employment to a post. Amongst others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cast an obligation upon the employer to consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, gravity of the offence, degree of involvement, conduct of the candidate and effect on the employment and such other akin facts, thereafter to take a decision thereupon. The rule, therefore, is that there should be an objective Page 5 of 9 6 OA No.200/785/2018 assessment of the facts based on relevant material to arrive at a decision. The discretion conferred upon the Authority is not absolute in nature, but is guided by reasonableness and the decision arrived at must be objective, based on relevant considerations as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
9. Whether cancellation of the appointment of applicant on aforesaid facts and circumstances can be said to be justified in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), is the sole question to be addressed.
10. No doubt that verification of character and antecedents of an incumbent before appointment to a post is an important criterion to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for that post. However, the Competent Authority/employer while adjudging the suitability of a candidate is expected to act prudently and rationally on due consideration of facts and circumstances before arriving at a decision.
11. In Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a candidate was merely involved in a criminal case and he was acquitted much before his date of appointment and for which he had given all information to the authorities as is required under Page 6 of 9 7 OA No.200/785/2018 the law, his candidature cannot be cancelled because the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
12. In Sandeep Kumar's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that even in certain cases of concealment of involvement in criminal cases, cancellation of selection or denial of selection has to be considered as illegal. In the said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court further observed that at the young age, people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, the approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
13. The applicant, in the present case, while filling the Attestation Form in Clause No.12 has truthfully disclosed the fact of registration of an FIR against him under Section 294, 323, 427 and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and his acquittal on the basis of compromise on 09.12.2017 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Satna. The mandate in column No.12 of the Attestation Form is to disclose the fact that, "have you ever been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, or bound down/fined, convicted Page 7 of 9 8 OA No.200/785/2018 by a Court of Law of any offence...". It is true that in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. However, we find that an assessment has to be made by the Appointing Authority as to whether the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case would ultimately lead to the conclusion that his engagement would be detrimental for the nature of the employment for which he is being engaged. This may involve a bit of subjectivity, but the material on record has to receive an objective consideration. Merely because an FIR was lodged against the applicant under Section 294, 323, 427 and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and as his acquittal was on the basis of compromise cannot said to be a good ground to reject his candidature. The applicant was only 23 years old when the said incident had taken place. Even the documents placed on record do not suggest that the applicant has ever been subjected to trial for the offences alleged against him. On the facts of the present case, we find that the authority has simply rested its decision on the finding that the applicant did not deserve to be engaged on account of not having been honourably acquitted but acquitted on the basis of compromise. Whether the fact of his involvement was such Page 8 of 9 9 OA No.200/785/2018 that this inference could be justified does not appear to have been discussed in the impugned order.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, we quash and set aside the impugned communication dated 21.12.2017 (Annexure A-9) and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment in view of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
15. With these observations, this Original Application is allowed. No order as to costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 9 of 9