Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ranbir Singh Malik vs M/O Defence on 29 April, 2016
1 OA No.90/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No.90/2015
New Delhi this the 29th day of April, 2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. K. N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Shri Ranbir Singh Malik, 45 yers
S/o Shri Hari Chand Malik
R/o WZ-525F, Nangal Raya,
New Delhi-110046
[Terminated from the post of Mate (SSK)] .. Applicant
(Argued by: Shri S.N. Sharma, Advocate)
Versus
1. Union of India
Through its Secretary,
Ministry of Defence,
South Block,
New Delhi-110001.
2. The Commander Works Engineer (Utility)
Headquarter, MES,
Delhi Cantt.
Delhi Cantt. Delhi-110010.
3. The Chief Engineer (MES),
Delhi Cantt. Zone,
Delhi. ..Respondents
(By Advocate: Shri Rajnish Prasad)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice M.S. Sullar, Member (J) The epitome of the facts, exposited from the records, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose to decide the core controversy involved in the instant Original Application (OA), is that in the wake of advertisement, the applicant, Ranbir Singh Malik, was appointed in MES as Mate (SSK) in the ex-serviceman quota vide appointment letter dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure A-6). He concealed the 2 OA No.90/2015 factum of pendency of a criminal case registered against him vide FIR No.483 dated 28.12.2011 under Section 307 IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act & 185 M.V. Act by the police of Police Station, Rajouri Garden.
2. As a consequence thereof, his services were terminated for suppression and concealment of information/facts in the attestation form, vide order dated 13.08.2013 [Annexure A-1(C)], by the competent authority. Aggrieved by the said order, the applicant filed OA No.3705/2013 challenging it. The OA was dismissed vide order dated 05.12.2013 by this Tribunal. The applicant then filed Writ Petition (C) No.1626/2014 before the Hon'ble Delhi High Court.
3. During the pendency of the Writ Petition, the applicant was acquitted from the indicated criminal case vide judgment of acquittal dated 16.04.2014 (Annexure A-2) by Additional Sessions Judge, Tiz Hazari Courts.
4. Taking into consideration the factum of acquittal, the Writ Petition filed by the Applicant was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to him to approach the appropriate authority in the light of subsequent developments (acquittal) by means of order dated 15.09.2014 (Annexure A-3).
5. In pursuance thereof, the representation dated 31.10.2014 (Annexure A-4) filed by the applicant was 3 OA No.90/2015 considered and dismissed vide impugned order dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) by the competent authority.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA challenging the impugned orders dated 30.10.2014 (Annexure A-1) and dated 13.08.2013 [Annexure A-1 (C)], mainly on the ground that the impugned order [Annexure A-1] passed by the respondents is a non-speaking & non-reasoned order and the authority has not considered the subsequent developments of acquittal of the applicant from the criminal case. So much so that no opportunity of being heard was provided to him before passing the impugned order by the competent authority. On the basis of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant has sought quashing of the impugned orders, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
7. The contesting respondents refuted the claim of the applicant, filed the reply, pleading, inter alia, certain preliminary objection of maintainability of the OA which was stated to be misconceived, misleading and untenable. On merits, it was acknowledged that the applicant joined his duty on 26.02.2013, in view of letter of appointment dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure R-1). However, it was pleaded that he suppressed the factum of pendency of a criminal case registered against him. In the wake of verification, police forwarded the character and antecedents report dated 18.07.2013 (Annexure R-2), which would reveal that the 4 OA No.90/2015 applicant was involved in a criminal case registered against him vide FIR No. No.483 dated 28.12.2011 under Section 307 IPC, 25/54/59 Arms Act & 185 M.V. Act by the police of Police Station, Rajouri Garden. He neither mentioned it in application form, nor informed these facts to the department at the time of appointment.
8. According to the respondents, at per para 2 (c) of appointment letter, it was clearly mentioned that if the character and antecedents are not found satisfactory on police verification or for other reasons, the appointing authority reserves the right to terminate his service forthwith, without assigning any further reason. It was also mentioned that if any declaration or information given by the applicant proved to be false or he was found to have wilfully suppressed any material information then he will be liable for removal from service, besides other action as deemed fit. Since the applicant has concealed the fact of pendency of criminal case, so one month notice dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure A-1 Colly) was given to him for termination of his service under Rule 5(1) of Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. Even the applicant has acknowledged that he was in possession of revolver and had fired from it at the time of the occurrence.
9. The case of the respondents further proceeds that the applicant had earlier filed OA No.3075/2013 on the same 5 OA No.90/2015 very grounds, challenging the impugned order dated 13.08.2013 (Annexure A-1 Colly) which was dismissed on merits by this Tribunal. The representation filed by him was duly considered and his request was turned down on the ground that his character and antecedents have not been found to be satisfactory as per the police verification.
10. Virtually reiterating the validity of impugned orders, the contesting respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the OA and prayed for its dismissal.
11. Controverting the pleadings in the reply filed by the respondents and reiterating the grounds taken in the OA, the applicant filed the rejoinder.
12. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after having gone through the record with their valuable help and considering the entire matter, we are of the firm view that there is no merit in the instant OA.
13. Ex-facie, the argument of the learned counsel for the applicant that, since the applicant was subsequently acquitted from the criminal case, he is liable to be reinstated in service, is not only devoid of merit but misplaced as well.
14. As is evident from the record that applicant was appointed as a temporary Mate (SSK) in ex-serviceman quota vide appointment letter dated 22.02.2013 (Annexure R-1). The relevant terms and conditions described in the appointment letter are as follows:-
6 OA No.90/2015
"(i) The post is temporary, but likely to be made permanent after completion of probation period. Your claim for permanent absorption will be considered in accordance with the rules in force.
(ii) The appointment is provisional and is subject to detailed Police verification of character and antecedents. If the character and antecedents are not satisfactory on police verification or for other reasons, the appointing authority reserves the right to terminate your service forthwith without assigning any further reasons.
(iii) Your service is subject to the conditions of service as applicable to temporary civilian Govt. servants paid from Defence Service Estimates in accordance with the order issued by the Govt. of India from time to time and subject to be governed by CCS (Conduct) Rule, 1964, field Service liability Rules 1957 and CCS (Classification, Conduct and Appeal) Rules, 1965.
(iv) You will be on probation for a period of two years from the date of your appointment, which may be extended by the competent authority for unsatisfactory performance during the period of the probation or for failure to pass the department examination or non completion of training or for any other reasons to be recorded in writing. Failure to complete the period of probation to the satisfaction of competent authority will render you liable to be discharged from service/to be reverted to your substantive appointment in case you have been allowed to hold a lien against it.
(v) The appointment may be terminated at any time on one month's notice given by either side, viz the appointing authority or you without assigning any reasons. The appointing authority, however, reserves the right to terminate your service forthwith or before the expiry of the stipulated period of notice by making payment to you a sum equivalent to the pay and allowances for the period of notice or the unexpired portion thereof.
(vi) If the declaration or information given by you proves to be false or if you are found to have wilfully suppressed any material/information, you will be liable for removal from service and such other action as deemed fit will be taken against you".
15. As per aforesaid conditions, the applicant was on probation, his appointment was provisional and was subject to detail police verification of character and antecedents. If the character and antecedents are not satisfactory on police verification or for other reasons, the Appointing Authority reserved the right to terminate his service forthwith, without 7 OA No.90/2015 assigning any further reason. It is not a matter of dispute that since the applicant has suppressed the factum of pendency of criminal case against him, his services were terminated vide order dated 13.08.2013 [Annexure A-1 (C)]. The applicant had challenged this order in OA No.3075/2013 before this Tribunal.
16. Having completed all the codal formalities and placing reliance on the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary Vs. Sushil Kumar (1996) 11 SCC 605 and Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another Vs. Mehar Singh 2013 (7) SCC 685, the OA was dismissed by a coordinate bench of this Tribunal by means of judgment dated 05.12.2013. The operative part of the order is as follows:-
"16. The facts revealed even as per the applicant, and also of the FIR (Annexure A3), it is clear that the offence alleged against the applicant is not just an ordinary and unexpected accident punishable under Sections 337/338 of IPC. Even as per the applicant himself, he was carrying revolver at the relevant point of time and that he himself tried to shot the Truck Driver and fired into the air, and accordingly, the offence booked against him is under 307 IPC, i.e., attempt to murder. Further, he worked in the Indian Army for 20 years and aged about 44 years, and hence, any of his acts, i.e., involvement in the crime or suppressing the said fact can not be considered as indiscretions of young people and accordingly, the Judgement in Sandeep Kumar (supra) has no application at all to his case. Further, in view of the Judgements in Sushil Kumar (supra) and Mehar Singh (supra), we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents.
17. As rightly submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that the reason for termination of the applicant is not his involvement in the crime, but his unsuitable character and antecedents in suppressing the said fact, and hence, the Judgement in Palak Modis case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case, as it was decided on its own facts".8 OA No.90/2015
17. As indicated hereinabove, the temporary services of the applicant were not dispensed with on account of registration of a criminal case, but due to concealment/suppression of information/material facts of pendency of the criminal case against him and due to adverse police report about his character and antecedents. Hence his subsequent acquittal in the criminal case, ipso facto, cannot be ground to reinstate him. It was ruled by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra Kumar Vs. State of Uttaranchal & Others JT 2013 (10) SC 566 that suppression of information of criminal case itself amounts to moral turpitude. Thus, the subsequent acquittal will not affect the validity of termination order in any manner, as urged on his behalf.
18. Therefore, the appropriate authority has rightly negated the case of applicant for reinstatement vide impugned order (Annexure A-1). No fault could possibly be attributed to the impugned orders and they deserve to be maintained.
19. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
20. In the light of the aforesaid reason, we find that there is no merit in the OA and it deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, as such. No costs.
(K.N. SHRIVASTAVA) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh