Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Union Of India vs Doongar Singh Rawat Son Of Shri Ladu ... on 8 January, 2020
Bench: Sabina, Narendra Singh Dhaddha
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15577/2019
1. Union Of India, Through General Manager, North Western
Zone, North Western Railways, Near Jawahar Circle,
Jagatpura, Jaipur-302006
2. Chief Mechanical Manager, North Western Zone, North
Western Railways, Near Jawahar Circle, Jagatpura, Jaipur-
302006
3. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railways,
Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
4. Divisional Assistant Mechanical Engineer (Establishment),
North Western Railways, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
5. Assistant Mechanical Engineer (P) (Establishment), North
Western Railways, Ajmer Division, Ajmer.
----Petitioners
Versus
Doongar Singh Rawat Son Of Shri Ladu Singh Rawat, Aged About
52 Years, Resident Of Village & Post Kanakhedi, Via Sri Nagar,
Ajmer, Last Employed As Khallasi Under Assistant Mechanical
Engineer (P) (Establishment), North Western Railway, Ajmer
Division, Ajmer.
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Shri P.C. Sharma
(Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM)
(2 of 7) [CW-15577/2019]
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA
Order
08/01/2020
BY THE COURT : (PER HON'BLE DHADDHA, J.)
1. This writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners
- Union of India and four others, against the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jaipur Bench, Jaipur (for short "the Tribunal") whereby the learned Tribunal allowed Original Application (OA) setting aside the orders dated 5.9.2011 and 19.7.2013 passed by the petitioners. Respondent applicant Doongar Singh Rawat was ordered to be reinstated in service by the petitioners giving notional benefits and further direction for grant of actual consequential benefits only from the date of his reinstatement in service. Being aggrieved with the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal, the petitioners have filed this writ petition.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 Union of India issued notification to fill up certain posts from Ex- Service Men. The respondent applicant Doongar Singh Rawat, being Ex-Service Man, applied for the post of Khallasi. The petitioners selected the respondent applicant Doongar Singh Rawat to appoint him to the post of Khallasi vide order dated 28.4.2011 and thus he joined the said post on the next day, i.e. on 29.4.2011. He was performing his duties without any shortcoming. But, petitioner No.5 - Assistant Mechanical Engineer vide letter dated 5.9.2011 without competency, terminated the services of the respondent applicant without affording / extending (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM) (3 of 7) [CW-15577/2019] any chance of hearing on the ground that he had concealed the fact regarding court case on affidavit. The respondent No.5, neither extended any chance of hearing nor adopted procedure under Railway Servants (Discipline & Appeal) Rules, 1968 and straightaway passed the termination order. The respondent No.5 was not the appointing authority. The respondent immediately made a representation on 13.9.2011 before the petitioner No.3, DRM, North Western Railway, Ajmer Division, Ajmer but it was rejected. The respondent applicant further appealed before the petitioner No.2 on 22.3.2012 and apprised with the correct position with supporting documents stating that his termination was against the facts. The departmental appeal was not entertained. The respondent applicant approached the learned Tribunal. The learned Tribunal disposed of the appeal with direction to the petitioners for deciding the appeal within two months. The petitioner No.4 had rejected the appeal vide order dated 19.7.2013.
3. In reply, it was averred that non-disclosure / concealment in question was clearly admitted by the respondent applicant in view of the clear warning given at the beginning of the Attestation Form itself that furnishing false information/s in the form, would invite termination of service. The respondent applicant himself submitted an affidavit reiterating that in case any such case was later found to be pending in a court or educational institution, the Railway Administration would have the right to remove him without prior notice immediately from service.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal is totally unjustified, illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM) (4 of 7) [CW-15577/2019] Indian Railway Manual and Provisions/Instructions on the subject and settled proposition of law.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that the learned Tribunal did not take into consideration that despite explicit warning under paras 1 to 3 of the Attestation Form wherein para no.1 specifically stated that furnishing of false information/s in the Attestation Form would mean disqualification and was likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government, respondent had given false undertaking.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that in the Attestation Form, the respondent applicant had filled in the false information and the same had also been admitted by him. He further submitted that not only this, the respondent applicant also submitted a false affidavit on non-judicial stamp that he was never prosecuted. The learned counsel further submitted that when antecedents of the respondent applicant were verified, it came out that he was prosecuted by the court of law.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submitted that an FIR No.44/2000 was registered against the respondent applicant for offence u/s 323, 324 and 341 IPC and challan was filed after due investigation before ACJM No.3, Ajmer which was compromised on 22.7.2000.
8. Last limb of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the writ petition be allowed and the impugned order dated 14.8.2019 passed by the learned Tribunal be set aside.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM) (5 of 7) [CW-15577/2019] Singh v/s Union of India & Ors., on 21.7.2016 in Special Leave Petition (C) No.20525/2011.
10. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and with his assistance, perused the impugned order and material available on record.
11. It is an admitted position that the respondent applicant had not disclosed the criminal proceedings instituted against him in they year 2000. The learned Tribunal in its order observed that the matter had to be looked into with regard to the particular facts and circumstances of the case. In the present case, the criminal proceedings, in question, relate to a dispute dated 11.6.2000 which was resolved by compromise on 13.6.2000 i.e. two days later. The criminal proceedings initiated against the respondent applicant was very trivial in nature. The case referred by the appellants supports the respondent.
12. Apex Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra) observed as under :
"24. No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty bound to furnish it correctly and any suppression of material facts or submitting false information, may by itself lead to termination of his services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case. However, in a criminal case incumbent has not been acquitted and case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating the services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of criminal case. In such a case non disclosure or submitting false information would assume significance and that by itself may be ground for employer to cancel candidature or to terminate services.
25. The fraud xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM) (6 of 7) [CW-15577/2019] xx xx xx x x xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx information.
26. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
27. Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
28. What yardstick is to be applied has to depend upon the nature of post, higher post would involve more rigorous criteria for all services, not only to uniformed service. For lower posts which are not sensitive, nature of duties, impact of suppression on suitability has to be considered by concerned authorities considering post/nature of duties/services and power has to be exercised on due consideration of various aspects."
13. Apex Court observed that suppression of material information presupposes that what was suppressed, has to be examined objectively.
14. In the present case, the learned Tribunal while allowing the OA filed by the respondent applicant observed that there was no deliberate misrepresentation or non-disclosure of criminal proceedings. It was also observed that the said criminal proceedings came to an end by way of compromise, hence no weight could be given to the said proceedings. (Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM)
(7 of 7) [CW-15577/2019]
15. We are of the considered view that the learned Tribunal had not committed any illegality and infirmity in allowing the OA filed by the respondent applicant. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed.
16. Accordingly, the writ petition along with stay application is dismissed.
(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J (SABINA),J
RAJ KUMAR CHAUHAN /17/M40
(Downloaded on 16/02/2020 at 08:52:26 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)