Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Mohammed Salih M vs Ut Of Lakshadweep on 25 July, 2022
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No. 181/00137/2019
Monday, this the 25th day of July, 2022
CORAM:
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judicial Member
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member
Mohammed Salih M.,
aged 32 years,
S/o. Attakoya O.P.,
Madam (H), Amini Island,
UT of Lakshadweep. ..... Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. R. Rohith)
Versus
1. Administrator,
Lakshadweep Administration,
Kavaratti, Union Territory of
Lakshadweep, Pin - 682 555.
2. Superintendent of Police,
Lakshadweep Administration,
Kavaratti, Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Pin - 682 555. ..... Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. Sreekala K.L.)
This application having been heard on 20.07.2022, the Tribunal on
25.07.2022 delivered the following:
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. K.V. Eapen, Administrative Member -
The applicant is aggrieved by the denial of appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator under the Fire Protection and Control in the Police Department, UT of Lakshadweep, despite the fact that he was selected at serial No. 13 of the Select List and the numbers of vacancies to be filled up 2 are 50. Annexure A10 is the impugned order whereby the appointment of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that he has been implicated as accused No. 5 in Crime No. 4/2012 for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 457, 427, 323, 506(ii), read with 149 IPC and 3(i) of PDPP Act. He however, submits that he was acquitted by judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini. He submits that merely because he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal case, employment cannot be denied to him. He submitted that it is evident from Annexures A4 and A5 that the respondents themselves have made appointments in similar circumstances subject to the final outcome of the criminal case. The applicant has thus filed this OA seeking relief to set aside Annexure A10 and direct the respondents to give him appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator.
2. Respondents have filed a reply statement contending that the recruitment process comprised police verification as well. During the police verification it had been revealed that the applicant was an accused in Crime No. 4/2012 (CC No. 6/2013) under Sections 143, 147, 427, 457, 323, 506(ii) read with 149 IPC and 3(1) of PDPP Act and that the case was registered in Amini Police Station. Therefore, the respondents acting upon the clause contained in Annexure A2 Select List, kept the selection of the applicant pending final decision on the eligibility of the applicant as per rules. The applicant was aware of the pendency of the criminal case against him but had willfully refused to furnish the particulars of the criminal case. Further, the respondents submitted that the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, 3 Amini as per judgment dated 19.6.2017 in Crime No. 4/2012 (CC No. 6/2013) has acquitted the applicant from all the criminal charges alleged against him by giving him the benefit of doubt. The applicant had approached this Tribunal by filing OA No. 605 of 2018 alleging non- consideration of his case for appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator despite acquittal in the criminal case pending against him. This Tribunal at that time disposed of the OA as per Annexure A9 order with a direction to the respondents to consider and pass appropriate orders on the representations dated 6.11.2017 and 28.3.2018 submitted by the applicant. Accordingly, the respondents, in compliance, constituted a Screening Committee to examine the case of the applicant. The Screening Committee in its meeting held on 10.9.2018 had found that the acquittal of the applicant was not an honourable acquittal and that there was a serious charge against the applicant for assaulting a police officer. Hence, the Screening Committee had unanimously decided not to recommend the applicant for appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator. Accordingly, Annexure A10 order dated 21.9.2018 was issued by the respondents rejecting the candidature of the applicant.
3. The respondents submit that it is settled law that mere acquittal in a criminal case will not confer any indefeasible right for appointment. It is the prerogative of the employer to examine the eligibility of the candidate for appointment to the post. The employer has to take the decision in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of the applicant the allegations were quite grave and the acquittal was not 4 honourable. It is submitted that the applicant is not similarly placed as that of the candidates covered under Annexures A4 and A5. The respondents submitted that Annexure A10 order was passed after following a fair and transparent process. The respondents had not given any promise either explicit or implied to the applicant assuring his appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator in the Lakshadweep Fire Department. Thus, the applicant cannot claim the benefit of legitimate expectation and the respondents have prayed for dismissing the OA.
4. We have heard Mr. R. Rohit, learned counsel appearing for the applicant and Mrs. Sreekala K.L., learned counsel appearing for the respondents at length. Perused the records.
5. We are of the opinion that the stand taken by the respondents that mere acquittal in a criminal case will not confer any indefeasible right for appointment, is the right one, as per law. It is the prerogative of the employer to examine the eligibility of the candidate for appointment to a post. The employer has to take the decision in accordance with the facts and circumstances of each case. In the case of the applicant the allegations were quite grave and the acquittal was not honourable. The Hon'ble Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Amini as per judgment dated 19.6.2017 in Crime No. 4/2012 (CC No. 6/2013) had held under:
"26. Thus on a careful consideration of the evidence in its entirety and from the above discussion, I am of the view that the accused themselves have not formed into unlawful assembly, caused luring trespass in to the Government Quarters were the defacto complainant resides and there is no conclusive proof that the material objects which are recovered from the place of occurrence are the articles under the ownership of the State. From the evidence of the witnesses, it is not clear that the accused were committed 5 the offences as stated by the prosecution. Also, the circumstances injected by the prosecution provides unhelpful and ambiguity regarding the evidence collected by the Investigating Officer. Therefore, it is very much difficult ot overlook the cooked up story by the prosecution without any suspicious eye that entire story leveled against the accused by the Police is true and with veracity. To conclude, I am of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove that the accused unlawfully assembled, caused riot, lurking trespass, mischief, assault and criminal intimidation etc. The prosecution has failed to prove its cases beyond reasonable doubt it is obvious that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused, I do so. Hence, the accused are not guilty of any offence as alleged by the prosecution. The above points, accordingly, are found answered against the prosecution."
6. It is clearly mentioned in paragraph 26 quoted above that the prosecution has failed to prove its cases beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, found that the benefit of doubt should be extended to the accused. We find that the Screening Committee had gone into all these matters and after scrutinizing the case details of the applicant including the relevant documents found that the acquittal of the applicant was not honourable. They unanimously decided not to recommend the applicant for appointment to the post of Fireman/Driver Operator. We also find that the appointments made as per Annexures A4 and A5 orders were conditional appointments. In the case of the applicant the respondents had kept one post vacant till the outcome of the criminal proceedings against the applicant. In the matter of fresh appointments the respondents have to be satisfied that the applicant fits the bill on all grounds including the matter of previous behavior, etc. In this matter it appears that for the sensitive post of Fireman/Driver Operator, they have taken a decision to recruit candidates with a proper track record. They have decided that the applicant does not measure up to this owing to his involvement in the case where he was let off giving the benefit of the doubt. For fresh appointments, the standard of measurement is normally kept at a higher level and we do not find the rejection was arbitrary or interfering with 6 the process of natural justice or equity.
7. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in this OA. Accordingly, the OA is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.
(K.V. EAPEN) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
"SA"
7
Original Application No. 181/00137/2019
APPLICANT'S ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 - True copy of the notification F. No.
10/25/1996AC(F)(3) dated 1.1.2013 issued by
the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A2 - True copy of the select list bearing No.
10/25/1996-AC(F) dated 4.3.2015 issued by
the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A3 - True copy of the FIR No. 4/2012 registered by
the Amini Police.
Annexure A3(a) - True copy of the English translation of
Annexure A3.
Annexure A4 - True copy of the appointment order No.
1/13/88-Estt(pol)/3 dated 4.1.1989.
Annexure A5 - True copy of the order No. 1/9/2001-Estt(pol)
dated 25.3.2006.
Annexure A6 - True copy of the order dated 7.7.2015 issued by
the Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench in OA No. 181/67/2015.
Annexure A7 - True copy of the judgment dated 19.6.2017 in CC No. 6/2013 by the Hon'ble Chief Judicial Court, Amini.
Annexure A8 - True copy of the representation dated 28.3.2018 preferred by the applicant before the 2nd respondent.
Annexure A9 - True copy of the order dated 11.7.2018 in OA No. 181/05/2018 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal, Ernakulam Bench.
Annexure A10 - True copy of the order No. F. 10/25/1996- AC(F) 3050 dated 21.9.2018 issued by the 2nd respondent.
8Annexure A11 - True copy of the representation dated 5.10.2018 preferred by the applicant before the 1st respondent.
Annexure A12 - True copy of the office order in file No. F. No. 2/7/2012 IRBN dated 20.11.2018 in which Shri Arshad A is appointed for Constable (Executive) in IRBn.
Annexure A13 - Certified copy of the judgment dated 12.5.2006 in CC No. 16/2005 by the Hon'ble Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Amini.
RESPONDENTS' ANNEXURES Annexure R1(a) - True copy of the application form submitted by the applicant.
Annexure R1(b) - True copy of the minutes of the screening committee meeting held on 10.92018.
-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-