Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Nikunj Kumar Pandey vs Union Of India Through It S Secretary on 22 July, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.429 of 2013
Jabalpur, this Wednesday, the 22nd day of July, 2015
MR. G.P. SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
MR. U. SARATHCHANDRAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Nikunj Kumar Pandey, s/o Shri G.R. Pandey,
Aged about 38 years, r/o 1321, Sethi Nagar,
Gupteshwar Road, Jabalpur 482008 (M.P.) -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Manoj Sharma)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence, Raksha Bhawan, New Delhi 110011.
2. AOC Record, Secundrabad 900453, c/o 56 APO.
3. Commandant, Central Ordnance Depot,
Jabalpur 482001 (M.P.). - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari)
O R D E R
By U. Sarathchandran, JM :-
Applicant was appointed as Labourer in the respondents establishment vide Annexure A-4 order. While working as Labourer, he was promoted to the post of Storekeeper. After verification of the documents applicant was directed to appear for medical test. Aggrieved by the situation that there was no further progress in granting appointment to him to the post of Storekeeper, he approached this Tribunal with O.A 197/2013. This Tribunal disposed of that O.A vide Annexure A-9 order dated 5.8.2013 directing the respondents to consider the representation of the applicant. It was thereafter respondents came up with Annexure A-1 chargesheet dated 29.4.2013 which was received by the applicant on 8.5.2013. In Annexure A-1 chargesheet it is alleged that the applicant has misrepresented himself as an illiterate at the time of his appointment as Labourer and had suppressed his actual educational qualifications of 10th and 12th std. pass at the time of the recruitment to the post of Labourer in 1996. According to the applicant he had clearly stated his educational qualification at the time of submitting the Bio-data and other details at the time of his recruitment as Labourer and the same had been taken note by the respondents and there was no willful suppression of his superior qualifications. He, therefore, prays for the following relief:
(i) Summon the entire relevant record from the respondents for its kind perusal;
(ii) Quash and set aside the impugned charge sheet dated 29.4.2013 (Annexure A/1).
(iii) After quashing of the impugned charge memorandum, direct the respondent authorities to issue appointment letter on the post of Store Keeper in favour of the applicant in a time bound manner with all consequential benefits arising thereto, in the interest of justice;
(iv) Any other order/orders, which this Honble Court deems, fit proper.
(v) Cost of the petition may also kindly be awarded.
2. After admitting the O.A and after giving opportunity to the respondents to file a short reply, an interim order staying operation of Annexure A-1 was passed by this Tribunal, which is continuing even now.
3. Respondents resisted this O.A on the ground that the applicants conduct of suppression of his educational qualification at the time of his appointment as Labourer is against the conduct rules and the extant instructions issued by the DoPT and hence he is liable to be proceeded against for disciplinary action.
4. We have heard Shri Manoj Sharma, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri S.A. Dharmadhikari, learned counsel for the respondents.
5. The short question arising here is whether there was any willful suppression of the applicants superior qualification at the time when he applied for the post of Labourer? It is seen from the record that recruitment to the post of Labourer was made from amongst the candidates sponsored by the Employment Exchange. The applicant does concede that at the time when he registered with the Employment Exchange, his educational qualification indicated in the Identity Card issued by the Employment Exchange was as Anpadh (illiterate), but according to him after registration in the Employment Exchange he had acquired the subsequent educational qualification. He affirms that this fact has been stated in the Bio-data furnished at the time of his selection in January, 1997 vide Annexure A-3. Applicant further states that this fact had been noted by the authorities of the respondents department also, as can be seen from Annexure A-10. At page 42 of the O.A there is a copy of printed format wherein the applicant had furnished his Bio-data. In that format his educational qualification is shown as illiterate against the column (printed) at the time of his first appointment and as 10th and 12th pass as subsequent acquired qualification. In short, applicant contends that there was no suppression of his qualification at the time when he was recruited and that all what has been furnished in the Bio-data were accepted by the respondents and he continued in the department for a long time with the meritorious service till the promotion to the post of Store Keeper came up. Applicant has produced Annexure A-5 series certificates and photographs as proof of his meritorious service in the respondents establishment.
6. During arguments, learned counsel for applicant pointed out that as per Annexure A-11, the prescribed qualification for the post of Labourer in the respondents establishment, the essential qualification is Nil and the desirable qualification is Primary School Pass. Learned counsel argued that when the recruitment rule for the Labourer in the respondents establishment prescribes no essential educational qualification there is no reason for the respondents to treat the applicant who has acquired higher qualification subsequently as having suppressed material facts. We find some force in that contention. It is true that Annexure A-7 Identity Card issued by the Employment Exchange shows that at the time of registration (initially) the applicant is recorded as illiterate. Even if the submission of learned counsel for respondents that the applicant got selected on the basis of the nomination made by employment exchange as an illiterate person at the time of appointment, is accepted for arguments sake, records show that the applicant had furnished to the respondents all the details of his educational qualification which were subsequently acquired by him after registration in the Employment Exchange.
7. We do not agree with the contention of learned counsel for respondents that in the aforesaid circumstances the applicant has committed any suppression of fact that would tantamount to misconduct. Acquiring higher educational qualification is one of the steps by which a person is trying to improve his excellence. Article 51A (j) of our Constitution enjoins every citizen the primary duty to constantly endeavour to prove excellence, individually and collectively as a member of the group. Given an opportunity, the individual employee strives to improve excellence and thereby efficiency of administration would be augmented. This being the constitutional ideal, we note with sadness that the steps taken by the respondents for taking disciplinary action by issuing Annexure A-1 charge memo was a retrogressive step on their part, countervailing the fundamental duties enumerated in the Constitution of India. Respondents establishment being an instrumentality of the State ought not have been irrational against a low grade employee especially on the eve of his promotion to a higher post.
8. In the circumstance, we feel that the act of the respondents in issuing Annexure A-1 is unjust and unsustainable in the light of the aforementioned circumstances. Such conduct on the part of the respondents smacks of arbitrariness which is an antithetical to good governance. Hence we are of the view that Annexure A-1 deserves to be quashed and set aside. We do so.
9. We are conscious that the Tribunals should not ordinarily interfere in the disciplinary proceedings especially at the stage of serving chargesheet. However, in this case if we permit the respondents to proceed with the chargesheet issued to the applicant, it will certainly stall the prospects of the applicant getting the post of Store Keeper for which he was already selected. However, in the interest of justice, we are inclined to quash and set aside the impugned charge memo.
10. In the result, the impugned Annexure A-1 charge memorandum is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to issue the appointment letter to the applicant for the post of Store Keeper to which he was duly selected after undergoing recruitment process. This exercise shall be completed by the respondents within 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Applicants posting as Store Keeper shall be with effect from the date on which Annexure A-8 was issued. It is made clear that applicant will not be entitled to back-wages. However, his backdated promotion will qualify him for all purposes including seniority and other consequential benefits including increments and pensionary benefits.
Ordered accordingly. No order as to costs.
(U. Sarathchandran) (G.P.Singhal) Judicial Member Administrative Member am 5 OA 429/2013 Page 5 of 5