Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Satveer Mahar vs M/O Railways on 20 January, 2022
1
OA No. 88/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 88/2019
Order reserved on 13.01.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 20.01.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Satveer Mahar S/o Late Shri Kanaram aged about 31
years, R/o Plot No. 39/8, UIT Colony, Bhagwan Ganj,
Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001.
....Applicant
Shri Amit Mathur, counsel for applicant (through Video
Conferencing).
VERSUS
1. Union of India through General Manager, North
Western Railway, Head Quarter Office, Jagatpura
Road, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan -
302001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Western
Railway, Ajmer, Rajasthan-305001.
.... Respondents
Shri Anupam Agarwal, counsel for respondents
(through Video Conferencing).
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 with a prayer for quashing and 2 OA No. 88/2019 setting aside the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure A/2) and that respondents be directed to allow appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds.
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that father of the applicant, Shri Kanaram, while working as Clerk in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer, died on 04.06.2013. After his father's death, his mother made an application for giving appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds. He was directed to participate in the selection process. He appeared in the selection process for appointment on compassionate grounds. The applicant was directed to appear for medical vide communication dated 07.10.2013 and thereafter vide communication dated 21.10.2013, he was called for assessing his suitability and documents verification. After declaring him successful in the selection process, the respondents issued an order dated 11.11.2013 (Annexure A/3) offering appointment to the applicant in Group-C Skilled Artisan Grade PB Rs. 5,200-20,200 + Grade Pay Rs. 1900. Thereafter, the applicant 3 OA No. 88/2019 submitted attestation form wherein he commented that he has never been prosecuted. The applicant states that there were three cases against him when he was around 22 years of age. In the first case registered in the year 2007, under Section 147, 323/149, 341, he was acquitted vide order dated 10.08.2009. In second case also registered in the year 2007, under Section 147, 323/149,341, he was convicted under Section 147 vide order dated 23.09.2008 as he accepted his guilt and in other Sections, he was acquitted giving benefit of Section 3 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act. In third case registered in the year 2009, under Section 427, 323, 147 and 341, he was acquitted vide order dated 20.06.2012. So as in all cases, he was acquitted and as it was a minor dispute, he did not mention about the same in his attestation form. In the year 2014, police verification was made and it was communicated in the police verification that there were three criminal cases against the applicant. In all the cases, he has been discharged. So, the respondents issued order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure A/2) informing the applicant that he has not mentioned about three cases in attestation form, therefore, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended to him, 4 OA No. 88/2019 and the same was challenged by him before this Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 128/2017 and this Tribunal disposed of the said OA on 30.11.2018 with a direction to respondents to reconsider his case for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of judgment passed by the Hon'be Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh. In pursuance to the directions of this Tribunal, the respondents called the applicant for personal interview vide order dated 17.01.2019, but without considering his submissions and also law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the respondents have rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1) on the ground that the applicant was involved in offence which were not "trivial in nature". Therefore, aggrieved by the said order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1) as well as order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure A/2), the applicant has approached this Tribunal stating that he has not committed any mistake by stating that no criminal case is pending against him and, hence, the impugned termination order is bad in law and the same is liable to be quashed and set aside.
3. The respondents, after issue of notices, have filed their reply justifying their stand stating that 5 OA No. 88/2019 admittedly, even after the warning in the Attestation Form, the applicant failed to disclose about the criminal cases registered against him. It being suppression of material fact involves moral turpitude. Thus, respondents have rightly held him ineligible for appointment as per rules. He had earlier preferred O.A., which was disposed of by this Tribunal vide order dated 30.11.2018 with certain directions. The competent authority, in compliance of the orders passed by this Tribunal, gave personal hearing to the applicant and thereafter had re-considered the matter. During re-consideration, it observed that the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh had directed the respondents to consider the Government orders/instructions/rules applicable at the time of taking decision. Only because the applicant was granted benefit of doubt or extended the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act did not make his character unblemished so as to give him appointment. It also observed that the Railway Board vide its letter dated 06.11.2018 had endorsed the copy of DOPT OM dated 29.06.2016 (Annexure R/1) wherein in para 7 it is stated that in case any of the information submitted in self declaration is found incorrect, or in case, the verification confirms that facts given by the candidate 6 OA No. 88/2019 were not correct, then the appointing authority shall cancel the appointment letter forthwith. The candidate shall be rendered unfit for any Government employment and appointing authority shall undertake other criminal/civil/legal action, as per provisions of IPC etc., as deemed fit. Admittedly, during verification it was found that the information so furnished in the self declaration is incorrect. The respondents further state that merely because he averred that he did so in absence of knowledge or that he has been acquitted in the criminal case did not make the action of respondents illegal or unwarranted and they have rightly passed the order dated 04.02.2019. Therefore, the action of the respondents is just and legal. To substantiate their claim, the respondents have relied upon the order dated 05.11.2020 passed by this Bench of the Tribunal in OA No. 131/2014 (Fateh Singh vs. Union of India & Ors.). They have also relied upon the judgment dated 31.01.2020 passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Gobinda Behera (Civil Appeal No. 893/2020).
4. The applicant has filed a rejoinder denying the claim of the respondents and stated that DOPT OM 7 OA No. 88/2019 dated 29.06.2016 is not relevant in the case of the applicant. The respondents have in fact passed order dated 04.02.2019 on the ground that three criminal cases were against the applicant and while submitting the attestation form, he concealed the fact about criminal prosecution but the fact is that in all the cases, he was not sent behind the bars and was given benefit of doubt or Probation of Offenders Act. The applicant is a layman and is unaware of legal terms while filling attestation form as the charges were not that serious and, therefore, respondents cannot give their own interpretation towards orders passed in criminal matters. The applicant relied upon judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. vs. Sandeep Kumar, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 644, wherein it was observed that in young age sometimes error is committed by youth but for that error his life cannot be allowed to be spoiled. The same view was also taken by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ram Kumar vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., reported in (2011) 14 SCC 709. Following on the said principle, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India & Ors., reported in (2016) 8 SCC 471, has observed that a lenient view is 8 OA No. 88/2019 required to be taken by the department in the cases of trivial in nature. Thus, respondents have committed gross error in not allowing the compassionate appointment to the applicant and, therefore, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside.
5. Heard learned counsels for the parties through Video Conferencing and examined the material available on record along with the judgments/orders.
6. The learned counsel for the applicant as well as the respondents reiterated their submissions made earlier.
7. The main issue which requires consideration is whether action of Respondents in terminating services of the Applicant is just and proper and in accordance with law.
8. After hearing both the parties and after going through the pleadings, the question which requires consideration is whether in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the respondents have reconsidered the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate 9 OA No. 88/2019 grounds and while passing the impugned order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1), they have followed the directions given by this Tribunal in the earlier O.A.
9. The factual matrix of the case is that father of the applicant expired on 04.06.2013 while working as Clerk in the office of Divisional Railway Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer. After death of the father of applicant, his mother made an application for giving appointment to the applicant on compassionate grounds. The applicant participated in all the selection process for appointment on compassionate grounds. The respondents issued an order dated 11.11.2013 offering appointment to the applicant in Group-C Skilled Artisan Grade PB Rs. 5,200-20,200 + Grade Pay Rs. 1900. The applicant submitted attestation form wherein he commented that he has never been prosecuted. The applicant was required to fill the Attestation Form disclosing all the information as required and in spite of the said warning, applicant did not disclose about the criminal cases against him. It was a case of suppression of material fact involving moral turpitude. It is seen that as per letter dated 06.01.2014 issued by the District Magistrate, Ajmer cases were registered against the applicant, namely 10 OA No. 88/2019 Case No. 07/07 under Section 147, 341, 323, 149 of IPC, Case No. 128/07 under Section 147, 341, 323, 149 of IPC, and Case No. 202/09 under Section 143, 341, 323, 427 of IPC, wherein after investigation Challans were filed before the court of law and he has been exonerated in all the three matters. It is clear that he was either acquitted or given benefit of doubt and was released from the said charges after due 'admonition' as per provisions of Probation of Offenders Act on the basis of compromise between the parties. In fact, it cannot be said to be unfortunate mistake so as to absolve him about it. In fact, ignorance of law is of no excuse. The respondents issued order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure A/2) informing the applicant that he has not mentioned about three cases in attestation form, therefore, appointment on compassionate ground cannot be extended to him. Against the said order, applicant approached this Tribunal by way of filing OA No. 128/2017, which was disposed of vide order dated 30.11.2018 with a direction to respondents to reconsider the applicant's case for appointment on compassionate grounds in the light of Avtar Singh's case (supra) by affording an opportunity of hearing to the applicant. After serving the said order of this 11 OA No. 88/2019 Tribunal, applicant was called for personal hearing on 22.01.2019 and the respondents thereafter rejected the claim of the applicant vide order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1).
10. After going through order dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1), which is the impugned order in challenge, we have to see whether the directions of this Tribunal passed in earlier OA No. 128/2017 have been duly considered by the respondents in its true spirit and while passing the order dated 04.02.2019 whether they have gone through the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), as directed by this Tribunal.
11. Coming to the order in challenge, it is seen that the respondents have taken into consideration para 24 of Avtar Singh's case (supra) while passing the impugned order dated 04.02.2019. It is clear that in spite of specific warning mentioned in the Attestation Form giving clear information, applicant in para 11 of the said Attestation Form had not disclosed details of three criminal cases registered against him. This fact was accepted by the applicant in his personal hearing on 22.01.2019. The relevant part of Para 24 of the 12 OA No. 88/2019 judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra) reads as under:-
"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 its services or cancellation of candidature in an appropriate case".
As seen, the respondents have also gone through the decision of the said judgment at para 30 (3), which reads as under:
"The employer shall take into consideration the government orders/instructions/rules applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision".
In this regard, the respondents have taken into consideration the Railway Board letter No. E(D&A)/2017 GS4-1 dated 06.11.2018 pertaining to Verification of character and antecedents in Attestation Form as well as DOPT OM No. 18011/2(s)/2016-Estt(B)(i) dated 29.06.2016, para 7 of the same reads as under: -
"7. Since the candidate will submit the self declaration, in case any of the information is found incorrect, or in case, the verification confirms that facts given by the candidate were not correct, then the appointing authority shall cancel the appointment letter forthwith. The candidate shall be rendered unfit for any Government employment and appointing authority shall undertake other 13 OA No. 88/2019 criminal/civil/legal action as per provisions of Indian Penal Code (IPC) etc. as deemed fit".
12. After going through the findings arrived at by the respondents, we have observed that the respondents have gone in detail as regards the judgment of Avtar Singh (supra) especially para 24 as well as para 30 and have also gone in depth with regard to said DOPT OM as well as Railway Board Circular on the subject and thereafter observed that in spite of clear instructions and warning given in Attestation Form to fill correct details and in spite of this, the applicant failed to disclose the same, therefore, considered the applicant as 'Unfit' for appointment on compassionate grounds in the Railway Services. Thus, as Railways have not violated any provisions of law nor any rules, the impugned order in challenge dated 04.02.2019 (Annexure A/1) and order dated 02.03.2017 (Annexure A/2) cannot be interfered with as the same are just and legal.
13. Now coming to the judgments relied by the applicant, none are applicable to the present case as the respondents have not removed the applicant from service on the basis of the criminal case registered 14 OA No. 88/2019 against the applicant but on the ground of concealment of facts as regards to the criminal case.
14. From the analysis of the judgment in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), it is made clear that obtaining a job by a false certificate and wrong declaration, services have to be terminated. A candidate having suppressed material information and / or giving false information cannot claim right to continue in service. It is equally settled by the Lordships that sympathy has no role to play while discharging judicial functions. Thus, the applicant deserves no sympathy and the ratio of law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the pointed case applies to all four corners of the facts and circumstances of the present O.A. Also in a judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, on the same question of law, in the case of State of Odisha & Ors. vs. Gobinda Behera (Civil Appeal No. 893/2020) decided on 31.01.2020, placing its reliance upon the case of Avtar Singh, has allowed the Appeal and set aside the judgment and order of the Hon'ble High Court and maintained the order passed by the Tribunal, which had dismissed the O.A. 15 OA No. 88/2019
15. In view of the observations made herein-above, as the Original Application filed by the applicant is devoid of any merits, the same is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/