Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Yash Pal Singh vs Union Of India & Others Through on 31 March, 2011
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi O.A.No.78/2010 Thursday, this the 31st day of March 2011 Honble Shri M.L. Chauhan, Member (J) Honble Shri Shailendra Pandey, Member (A) Shri Yash Pal Singh s/o Shri Manwar Singh Rawat r/o H.No.2412, B Block Sanjay Colony Faridabad (Haryana) ..Applicant (By Advocate: Shri M K Bhardwaj) Versus Union of India & others through 1. The General Manager Northern Railway Baroda House, New Delhi 2. The Divisional Railway Manager State Entry Road, New Delhi 3. The Divisional Personnel Officer State Entry Road, New Delhi 4. Shri Kailash Chand Joshi Dy CMM, N. Rly, New Delhi ..Respondents (By Advocate: Shailendra Tiwary O R D E R (ORAL)
Shri M.L. Chauhan:
The applicant has filed this OA thereby praying for the following reliefs:
(i) to declare the actions of the respondents in terminating the services of applicant by verbal order as illegal.
(ii) to direct the respondents to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including arrears of pay.
(iii) To allow the OA with cost.
(iv) To pass such other and further orders which their lordships of this Honble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the existing facts and circumstances of the case.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the applicant was engaged as Telephone Attendant Dak Khallasi (Bungalow Khallasi) vide letter dated 3.8.2007 issued by the Senior Personnel Officer/Construction Northern Railway, Kashmere Gate, Delhi for a period of three months on a work charged post with the condition that he will work with the present Dy. CMM/C/K-Gate and will also work for the next Dy. CMM/C/K-Gate if the next incumbent chooses to continue with his services. However, it is the case of the applicant that considering his performance, his service period was extended and finally granted temporary status w.e.f. 27.8.2008. It is further averred that all of a sudden respondent No.4 directed the applicant verbally not to attend duties w.e.f. 30.10.2009. It is further stated that being aggrieved by the verbal direction given by respondent No.4 on 29.10.2009, the applicant approached respondent Nos. 2 & 3 but to no effect.
3. However, in paragraph 4.2 of the OA, the applicant has stated that while giving appointment on the said post, the applicant was directed to submit signed blank papers, so that the same could be used as per the requirement in case such services were not required by the new officer. Since he was in need of the service, he signed the blank papers. It is further pleaded that a resignation was also taken from the applicant by stating that the same would be torn off after few months. It is on these facts the applicant has filed the present OA.
4. Notice of this application was given to the respondents, who have filed their reply. By way of preliminary objection, the respondents have stated that the present OA is required to be dismissed on account of suppression of material facts. It is further stated that the applicant was initially appointed in the aforesaid capacity for a period of three months on work charged basis with a condition that he will work with the present Dy. CMM/C/K-Gate and will also work for the next Dy. CMM/C/K-Gate if the next incumbent chooses to continue with his services, otherwise his services would be terminated. For that purpose, reliance has been placed on the appointment letter at Annexure P-1 where such conditions are incorporated. The respondents have stated that Shri K.C. Joshi, Dy. CMM/Const/K-Gate was transferred from Kashmere Gate and posted as Dy. CMM/SSB in General Stores Depot/SSB and Shri Yash Pal Singh (applicant) was also transferred from Const. Kashmere Gate to General Store Depot SSB under Shri K.C. Joshi, Dy. CMM/SSB on 18.9.2008 on request of Shri K.C. Joshi, Dy. CMM/SSB.
5. It is further stated that the applicant submitted his resignation on 30.9.2009 and has submitted his unwillingness to continue to work as Telephone Attendant Dak Khallasi (Bungalow Khallasi) because of his personal and domestic circumstances. The respondents have placed on record a copy of the resignation letter dated 30.9.2009 as Annexure R-1. It is further stated that the same was accepted by the Senior Personnel Officer vide letter dated 6.10.2009 (Annexure R-2). The respondents have further stated that thereafter the applicant vide the letter dated 12.10.2009 has requested that he intends to withdraw his resignation given by him because the circumstances of that time have changed. The respondents have also placed on record a copy of the withdrawal letter dated 12.10.2009 as Annexure R-3.
6. It is further stated by the respondents that the request of the applicant for withdrawal of the resignation letter was not accepted and the applicant was intimated vide letter dated 10.11.2009 (Annexure R-4). The respondents have placed reliance on the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in MCD v. State of Delhi & another, (2005) 4 SCC 605 wherein it has been held that a litigant who approaches the court is bound to produce all documents which are relevant to the litigation. If he withholds the vital document in order to gain advantage on the other side then he would be guilty of playing fraud on the court as well as on the opposite party A person whose case is based on falsehood can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. We have no hesitation to say that a person whose case is based on falsehood has no right to approach the court and he can be summarily thrown out at any stage of the litigation. Thus, according to the respondents, the applicant is not entitled to any relief.
7. The respondents in their reply have categorically denied the averment made by the applicant in paragraph 4.2 of the OA that blank papers were got signed from him and that the resignation was also taken from the applicant. It is also stated that this allegation of the applicant is baseless, mischievous and afterthought.
8. The applicant has filed the rejoinder thereby reiterating the submissions made in the OA.
9. The respondents have filed the additional reply to the rejoinder. In this affidavit, the respondents have stated that the applicant has submitted a letter dated 12.10.2009 to the respondent-department regarding taking him back in service in which the applicant has clearly stated that on 30.9.2009 he had resigned from the service due to some personal and domestic problems and now due to change in the circumstances, he wanted to withdraw his resignation. Thus, according to the respondents, the factum of tendering the resignation on 30.9.2009 and showing his unwillingness to work stands fully proved.
10. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the material placed on record.
11. We are of the view that this is a case where the applicant is not entitled to be heard on merits in view of the suppression of material facts. As already stated above, the case projected by the applicant in the OA was that his services had been orally terminated and while entering into service, he was directed to submit the signed blank papers as well as letter of resignation. Such explanation given by the applicant in the OA cannot be accepted for more than one reason. In paragraph 4.2 of the OA the applicant has stated that besides submitting signed blank papers, resignation letter was also taken from the applicant at the time of entry into service. The respondents have placed on record the resignation letter submitted by the applicant dated 30.9.2009 as Annexure R-1 to be effective with immediate effect. Admittedly, the applicant was appointed on 3.8.2007 whereas the letter of resignation is dated 30.9.2009. Thus, the contention of the applicant that he has submitted the resignation letter at the time of his initial appointment cannot be accepted for more than one reason; firstly it bears the date as 30.9.2009 and secondly no reasonable man will presume that the letter of resignation submitted by the applicant at the time of his initial engagement was kept by the Department for more than two years and the same was used at subsequent stage. Further, from the material placed on record, it is also evident that this letter of resignation dated 30.9.2009 was accepted by the competent authority on 6.10.2009.
12. Further, as can be seen from the letter dated 12.10.2009, the applicant has also made a reference to his earlier resignation letter dated 29.9.2009, which he now wants to withdraw vide his letter dated 12.10.2009. In case the applicant has tendered his letter of resignation at the time of his induction in the service, the reference of 29.9.2009 regarding submission of his letter of resignation could not have been found mention in Annexure R-3. Thus, the facts remain that the applicant has concealed the material facts from this Tribunal. As such, he is not entitled to any relief. Even on merits, the applicant has not made out any case for our interference, as the applicant has tendered his resignation letter dated 30.9.2009 to be effective with immediate effect. A request of the applicant was accepted vide order dated 6.10.2009. Admittedly, the applicant is out of job w.e.f. 30.10.2009 and once the resignation has become effective and the said resignation has also been accepted by the competent authority, the withdrawal of the request by the applicant vide his letter dated 12.10.2009 is of no consequence. The facts remain that the applicant, who was engaged as Bungalow Khallasi with Shri K.C. Joshi, Dy. CMM/Const/K-Gate, was required to work with said officer on account of his transfer to another post in terms of the condition of appointment as incorporated in Annexure P-1. It is also admitted fact that Shri K.C. Joshi was transferred to another post from Kashmere Gate and the respondents have specifically stated that the applicant was also transferred from Kashmere Gate to General Store Depot SSB under Shri K.C. Joshi, Dy. CMM/SSB on 18.9.2008 but the applicant instead of joining under Shri K.C. Joshi submitted his resignation on 30.9.2009.
13. Under these circumstances, the applicant cannot be heard to say that his services have been terminated by the respondents illegally. Thus, viewing the matter from any angle, the applicant has not made out any case for grant of relief. The OA is accordingly dismissed without any order as to costs.
( Shailendra Pandey ) ( M. L. Chauhan ) Member (A) Member (J) /sunil/