Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Avtar Singh vs Income Tax on 10 April, 2024
1 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
Reserved on: 19.12.2023
Pronounced on: 10.04.2024
HON'BLE SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MRS. RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI, MEMBER (A)
(1) OA No. 060/95/2023
1. Lakhvir Singh s/o Sh. Gurinder Singh, age 54 years,
R/o 4-A, Sahib Nagar Theri, Urban Estate, Phase-I,
Patiala.
2. Ranjeev Kumar Jain S/o Sh. Uggar Sain Jain, age 60
years, R/o House No. 3765, Near Fort Gate, Peer
Khana Wali Gali, Bathinda.
3. Harvinder Singh S/o Sh. Gurbachan Singh, age 56
years, R/o House No.27, OMAXE City, Goniana Road,
Bathinda.
4. Balbir Singh S/o Sh. Sukhdev Singh, age 55 years, R/o
of Village Balahri Kalan, Tehsil and District Fatehgarh
Sahib.
5. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Gurdial Chand, years, R/o
Village Badshapur, District Patiala. Tehsil age 57
Patran,
6. Novinder Singh S/o Sh. Paramjeet Singh, age 54
years, R/o No. 230, Near Baba Paramanand De Kutte,
Moranwali, Sunam, District Sangrur.
7. Narinder Singh Josan s/o Sh. Jagir Singh, age 57
years, R/o VPO Bakhora Kalan, Tehsil Lehragaga,
District Sangrur.
8. Ranbir Singh S/o Sh. Ram Gopal Singh, age 50 years,
R/o House No.40, Phase-II, Officer Enclave, Patiala.
9. Gurdeep Singh S/o Sh. Baldev Singh, age 54 ears, R/o
House No.444, Urban Estate, Phase-II, Patiala.
2 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
10. Sunita W/o Nirmal Kumar, House No.275, Sector-94,
Mohali. age 54 years, R/c
11. Vijay Rani w/o Sh. Suresh Kumar, age 52 years R/o
House No.149/B, Street No.3/3, Raman Enclave
Ludhiana.
12. Bimla Devi w/o Sh. Inder Singh Gautam, age 52 years,
R/o 2959, New Housing Board Colony, Panipat.
.........Applicants
(By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Sharma)
(2) OA No. 060/98/2023
Hardeep Singh son of Sh. Harbhajan Singh, age 50
years, R/o Village Jalalpur, PO Sadharpur, The. Patra,
District Patiala.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West
Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
.........Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(3) OA No. 060/281/2023
Sham Sunder, s/o Late Sh. Bhola Ram, age 56 years,
resident of House No. 181, Bhathindia Mohalla, Nabha,
District Patiala-147201.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Sharma)
VERSUS
3 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West Region
(NWR), Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala.
.........Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(4) OA No. 060/985/2020
Mukesh Kumar Chhatwal, aged about 55 years, son of
Parkash Chand Chhatwal, resident of House No. 33/3,
Guru Nanak Nagar, Opp. TB Hospital, District Patiala
(Category C)
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Ms. Puja Chopra)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West
Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
3. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ludhiana, Ayakar
Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana: (141057).
4. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Patiala Range,
Patiala-147001.
.........Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(5) OA No. 060/170/2020
Avtar Singh (aged 43 years) Ex-Clerk (Group C post)
S/o Gurbachan Singh S/o Naranjan Singh, R/o Village
Tehalpura, PO Sehra, P.S. Rajpura, District Patiala.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. J.P.S. Sidhu)
VERSUS
4 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
1. Union of India through Secretary Revenue, Ministry of
Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income
Tax/Administration, N.W. Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17,
Chandigarh-160017.
3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Ludhiana,
Ayakar Bhawan, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana-141057.
4. Staff Selection Commission, Government of India,
Department of Personal, Public Grievances and Pensions,
Block No. 12, Kendriya Karyalaya Parisar, Lodhi Road, New
Delhi through its Secretary-110504.
(6) OA No. 060/97/2023
Harminder Singh, S/o Harchand Singh, age 58 years,
House No. 22, Friends Colony, Patiala.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West
Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
.........Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(7) OA No. 060/96/2023
Vikram Singh Mehrok (formerly known as Gurmeet
Singh), age 53 years, s/o Sh. Mohinder Singh, R/o
House No. 1651, Sector 61 (Phase 7), SAS
Nagr,Mohali.
.........Applicant
(By Advocate : Sh. D.R. Sharma)
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to Government of
India, Ministry of Finance, North Block, New Delhi-110001.
5 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
2. The Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, North West
Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17, Chandigarh-160017.
.........Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma)
(8) OA No. 060/182/2023
1. Rajinder Singh s/o Sukhdev Singh aged about 56 years,
c/o Village Shahpur, District Patiala. (Sr. Tax Assistant
/UDC)
2. Jagdish Singh s/o Ram Singh, aged about 53 years, R/o
Ward no.7, Rajgarh Road, Near Thodo Ground, Solan,
Himachal Pradesh (Sr. Tax Assistant /UDC)
3. Ashok Kumar S/o Guljari Lal, aged about 57 years, r/o
House no. 73-8, Hem Bhag, VTC, Patiala (Sr. Tax
Assistant/UD)
4. Mohinder Singh Mahal S/o Gurdev Singh Mahal aged
about 52 years, r/o H. No. 15-16, Flat No.8, Street
No.1, Rose Avenue, Kheri Gujjran Road, Patiala. (Tax
Assistant/LDC)
......................Applicants
(By Advocate : Ms. Puja Chopra)
Versus
1. Union of India through Revenue Secretary to
Government of India, Ministry of Finance, North Block,
New Delhi; (110001).
2. Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax (Admin),
North West Region, Ayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E,
Chandigarh.
3. Commissioner Income Tax-II/Range-IV, Ludhiana.
4. Commissioner Income Tax-I/Range -I, Ludhiana.
5. Commissioner Income Tax-II/ Range -III, Ludhiana.
6. Commissioner of Income Tax-III, Range-7, Ludhiana.
7. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Solan Range,
Solan, Himachal Pradesh.
6 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
......................Respondents
(BY Advocate: Sh. A.K. Sharma)
ORDER
Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):
1. All the above eight Original Applications are taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being extracted from O.A.No.060/95/2023 (Lakhvir Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) and the said case has been treated as a lead case.
2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the inaction of the respondents in not reinstating the applicants into service pursuant to acquittal order dated 23.05.2022 by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CBI Case RC No. CHG2004A0008/2126 of 31.03.2004. The applicants have also sent a legal notice dated 07.09.2022 and requested the respondents to reinstate them into service, but to no avail.
3. Thus, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-
7 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
"That the respondents be directed to reinstate the applicants into service with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances, with interest @ 12% p.a. and extending the benefit of judgement dated 28.11.2020 (Annexure A-8) upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgement dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure A-9), keeping in view the fact that the applicants have already acquitted from all charges, the very basis/substratum of allegations having been gone."
4. The brief facts are that the applicants joined against different posts under respondent No. 2. A CBI Case RC No. CHG2004A0008/2126 of 31.03.2004 was filed against the applicants wherein an allegation was levelled that the applicants had secured employment in the respondent department on the basis of forged nomination letter purportedly issued by SSC and that SSC had not nominated them for appointment. The Department issued show cause notice dated 03.09.2004 to the applicants which was replied to by the applicants. But no charge sheet was issued proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the services of the applicants were terminated with immediate effect vide orders (Annexure A-2) without holding a regular inquiry.
8 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
5. The Department had also terminated the services of 25 more officials who filed OAs before this Tribunal. All 25 OAs were decided vide common order dated 29.04.2003, inter alia directing the authorities concerned to hold an inquiry with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the nomination letter purported to be issued by the Commission and by granting opportunity to the officials. The Tribunal further recorded in the last para No. 18 of the order as under:-
"18. If ultimately after the inquiry, it is established that the nomination letters produced by the applicants and received by the department directly on the basis of which the applicants were issued the appointment letter were not forged, fictitious or bogus, but were genuine documents, in that event the impugned order of termination of the applicant shall stand set aside and the applicants shall be reinstated in service, ignoring the termination order with all consequential benefits. If the outcome of the inquiry is otherwise i.e. it is found that nomination paper produced by the applicants were forged and fictitious, the impugned termination order shall hold good and the OAs filed by the applicants shall stand dismissed."
The department had issued a letter asking the applicants about certain information/documents through an affidavit and the applicants duly submitted the information/documents as available with them at that time. However, without considering the same objectively, the services of the applicants were terminated vide different orders 9 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) w.e.f. the date of earlier order of termination. Similar orders of termination were passed by the department in respect of other officials. Feeling aggrieved, an OA No. 202/PB/2004 was filed by the applicants alongwith other officials, but the same was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2006. Against this order, some of the officials like Sh. Bhupinder Singh approached the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court by filing CWP No. 1300 of 2007 and this CWP was dismissed with liberty to re-approach the Tribunal so as to enable to lead evidence to establish the claim. Again, the Tribunal vide orders dated 27.08,2009 and 14.07.2009 dismissed the OAs. Again the cases were remanded back to the Tribunal vide judgement dated 23.03.2010 rendered by the Hon‟ble High Court in the CWPs No. 1479 of 2009, 18919 of 2007, 1398 and 14905 of 2010 filed by the aggrieved petitioners.
6. The Tribunal adjourned the cases sine die with liberty to either of the parties to inform the court of the final outcome of the criminal cases pending in 10 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) the CBI Special Court, Patiala, to revive this case at an appropriate time.
7. The Court of Special Judge CBI, Patiala passed judgement dated 12.01.2015 vide which the applicants were convicted for offence punishable under Section 120-B, 420, 472 IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years. The applicants however were acquitted of the charge under Section 468 of IPC.
8. The applicants submit in OA that since he basis of terminating the services of the applicants have become non-existent by virtue of their acquittal in the criminal case, they cannot be denied the relief of reinstatement. The trial court has acquitted the applicants on account of lack of evidence and acquittal in a criminal case for want of evidence is an acquittal on merit.
9. To agitate their claim further, the applicants relied on the judgement passed by the Division Bench of Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in case of Bhag Singh Vs. Punjab and Sind Bank and Ors. decided on 16, 08.2005, 141 PLR 961 wherein it was held as under:-
11 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
"....the use of the expression by the learned trial court that the prosecution has failed to bring home the charge to the accused beyond any reasonable doubt, would not obliterate the earlier discussion of the trial court which clearly established that there was no evidence against the petitioner which would tend to show that the petitioner was involved in any undesirable activities."
10. The applicants also relied upon judgement dated 23.05.2022 passed by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court.
11. Similarly placed employees when they are were reinstated in service and their claim was rejected, filed various OAs which were decided vide a common order dated 28.11.2020 directing the respondents to reinstate the applicants in service and granted notional benefits and actual benefits to start from the date they join back their duties. The writ petition filed against this order was also rejected vide detailed judgement dated 10.03.2022. Thus, the applicants have prayed for the similar relief qua this OA.
12. The respondents contested these OAs by filing their written statement.
13. It is stated in the written statement that the SSC conducted an examination for filling direct recruitment vacancies and persons passing the 12 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) examination are thereafter recommended for the appointment and such recommendation are conveyed through nomination letters issued by SSC. They were also issued appointment letters on the basis of purported nomination by SSC. Later on, during inquiries made by the office of the CCIT (CCA), NWR (Now Pr. CCIT, NWR), the SSC by its letters of 16.07.2004 F.No. 30/1/2004 EI (Annexure R-1) informed that after verification, it was found that a number of persons, which included the applicants did not figure in the result of the examination conducted by the Commission and no nomination letter recommending their names had been issued by the Commission. It was clearly mentioned in the letter that the persons named in the letter were not qualified candidates of the respective examination and had not been nominated by the SSC. As stated, only persons who have qualified the relevant examination conducted by SSC and who have been nominated by the SSC, can be appointed against direct recruitment vacancies in various posts of Group „C‟ cadre as per „Recruitment Rules‟.
13 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
14. It is further stated that in view of the categorical assertion by SSC, it became clear that the applicant did not fulfil essential requirement for being appointed against direct recruitment vacancies which was qualification of relevant examination conducted by the SSC. Accordingly, the disciplinary authority in their cases held that since appointments had been obtained in the Department on the basis of nomination letters, purported to be issued by the SSC, and whereas the SSC had informed that their names did not figure in the result declared by the SSC and that the SSC had not recommended their appointments, the very basis on which appointments were given does not exist and, therefore, the services of the applicants were terminated in October, November and December in 2004.
15. The applicants have filed the rejoinder reiterating their stand as stipulated in the Original Application.
16. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have carefully gone through the material on record.
17. The sole question for adjudication in the present OA is that whether the applicants who were regular 14 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) employees of the respondent department and their services having been terminated without holding an Inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965,is sustainable in the eyes of law when the allegations in the criminal case and the termination are identical and whether they are entitled to the relief claimed for in the present OA when they are acquitted in the criminal case?
18. It is not disputed that the applicants were appointed between year 1992-1994 on regular basis as UDC/LDC/Inspector/Stenographer. An F.I.R. No.RC9/A/1999 dated 26.02.1999 was registered by the CBI at New-Delhi against unknown officials of Staff Selection Commission and the officials of the department of Income Tax, North West Regionunder Sections 120B/420/468/471/201 IPC read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988. The same was sent to CBI Police Station, Chandigarh where a fresh FIR No. CHG2000A0027 of 10.10.2001 was got registered under the same very provisions against 31 accused namely, Naveen Kumar Sharma, Harish Chander, Sanjeev Kumar, Deepinder Singh,Avtar Singh s/o Gurbachan Singh, 15 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) Bhupinder Singh, Veer Singh, Paramjeet Singh, Kamaljeet Singh, Baljinder Singh, Pardeep Singh, Anil Rishi, Ripan Kumar, Parinder Pal Singh, Rakesh Kumar, Smt.Reena Kumari Taneja, Sham Sunder, Manjeet Singh, Rajiv Kumar, Harjinder Singh, Bachitar Singh, Amarjit Singh, Navtej Singh, Inderjit Singh, Mukesh Kumar, Prem Sagar, Narinder Singh, Avtar Singh S/o Harnek Singh, Suresh Chand Sharma, Satnam Singh and P.C. Chhatwal. The precise allegations in the said CBI case were as under:
"Accused through forgery and fake documents managed to secure appointments of Income Tax Inspectors, Stenos and Lower Division Clerks on the basis of such fraudulent nomination letters purported to have been sent by SSC. On account of this forgery and fabrication, accused were appointed as Inspectors, Upper Division Clerks, Stenographer. The names of these persons were nowhere there in the alpha list, select list or find mention in the master index list of the concerned quarter."
19. Thereafter, during investigation, another F.I.R. No. DPCHG2004 RC CHG 2004A0008/2126 dated 31.03.2004 was registered against the present applicants under Sections 120B/420/468/471/201 IPC read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the PC Act, 1988 for the following allegations:-
"Accused through forgery and fake documents managed to secure appointments of Income Tax Inspectors, Stenos and 16 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) Lower Division Clerks on the basis of such fraudulent nomination letters purported to have been sent by SSC. On account of this forgery and fabrication, accused were appointed as Inspectors, Upper Division Clerks, Stenographer. The names of these persons were nowhere there in the alpha list, select list or find mention in the master index list of the concerned quarter."
20. The officials involved in F.I.R. No. RC 9(A)/1999 dated 26.02.1999 were issued Charge sheet under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965 on 10.10.2000. The charges in the Charge sheet read as under:
"Sh. Prinder pal Singh, obtained employment on the basis of nomination issued from the office of Staff Selection Commission. The office of Staff Selection Commission informed that the purported nomination letter, on the basis of which Sh. Prinder Pal Singh had obtained the employment was not issued by the office of Staff Selection Commission, and that the name of Sh. Prinder Pal Singh does not figure in the result then declared by the Staff Selection Commission. Thus, Sh. Prinder Pal Singh, is alleged to have secured employment in this department on the basis of forged documents, which is a criminal offence, and which, therefore, automatically amounts to misconduct."
21. However, no inquiry was conducted under said Rule 14 and their services were terminated on the basis of aforesaid CBI case. In the case of present applicants, no Charge-sheet was issued and only the Show-cause notices were issued for the following allegations:-
"Sh. Lakhbir Singh had obtained appointment in this Department on the basis of nomination letter dated 02-09- 92 purportedly issued by Staff Selection Commission. Whereas the Staff Selection Commission informed that the name of Lakhbir Singh did not figure in the result then declared by SSC and they had not issued any nomination letter recommending Sh. Lakhbir Singh's appointment in 17 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) the Department. After holding inquiry in view of decision dated 29.04.2003 in OA No/853/2001, it is found that nomination letter on which appointment was offered to Lakhbir Singh was a forged one and fabricated document and this nomination letter was never issued."
22. That again no inquiry was conducted in case of present applicants and their services were terminated without holding any inquiry under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. Alongwith applicants, the department had terminated services of 24 more officials, who had filed O.A. before this Hon'ble Tribunal. All 25 Original Applications were decided vide Common Order dated 29.04.2003 (Annexure A-3) directing the authorities concerned to hold an inquiry with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the nomination letter purported to be issued by the Commission and by granting opportunity to the officials.
23. That respondents asked the applicants about certain information/documents through an affidavit and the applicants duly submitted the same as available with them at that time. However, without considering the same objectively, the services of the applicants were terminated w.e.f. the date of earlier order of termination. Similar orders of termination were passed by the department in respect of other officials. 18 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
24. That applicants along with other officials filed OAs challenging the respective termination orders. The OA filed by the applicants was registered as OA No.202/PB/2004. The OAs were dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 31.10.2006 (Annexure A-4).
25. That the CAT Order dated 31.10.2006 was challenged by filling CWP No.1300 of 2007 before the Hon'ble High Court and the High Court was pleased to set aside the said order dated 31.10.2006 vide order dated 27.03.2009 and remanded the matter with liberty to re-approach the Tribunal so as to enable to lead evidence to establish the claim. That the Tribunal dismissed OAs vide Orders dated 27.08.2009 and 14.07.2009. Again employees filed writ petitions before the Hon‟ble Court like CWP no. 1479 of 2009, 18919 to 18924 of 2007, 1398 and 14905 of 2010 and the Hon‟ble High Court set aside the Order dated 27.08.2009 and 14.07.2009 of the Tribunal and remanded the case back to Tribunal vide Judgment dated 23.03.2010 (Annexure A-6). Thereafter, the Tribunal passed the order dated 04.04.2011 (Annexure WA/1) as under: -
"The Learned counsel for the applicant has informed us that the case pending before the CBI Special Court, Patiala is now fixed for final hearing on 24.04.2011.
In view of this factual position and taking into consideration that the final outcome of the order to be passed by the CBI Special 19 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) Court would certainly have some impact on this case, we adjourn this case sine die with liberty to either party to inform this court of the final outcome of the criminal case pending in the CBI Special Court, Patiala, to revive this case at an appropriate time."
26. That the officials involved in the first F.I.R. were convicted by the CBI Court vide Judgement dated 16.05.2011. Similarly, the applicants in present OAs were also convicted by Special Judge CBI vide judgement dated 12.01.2015. The applicants involved in the former case filed their appeals before the Hon‟ble High Court against their conviction and ultimately, they were acquitted vide by the Hon‟ble High Court vide Judgement dated 10.05.2016 (Annexure WA/2). That the applicants in the present O.A.‟s who were convicted on 12.01.2015 also filled Criminal Appeal No.S-338-SB-2015 along-with connected CRA-S-216-SB-2015. The aforesaid appeals were decided vide Judgment dated 23.05.2022 and the applicants were acquitted in view of the case of the applicants being squarely covered with the decision in CRA-S-1508-SB-2011 dated 10.05.2016 (Annexure A-7)
27. That after acquittal when the officials in former Judgment were not reinstated in service and their claim was rejected, they filed a bunch of OAs leading case being OA No. 060/830/2019 before this Tribunal which were decided vide a common order dated 28.11.2020 20 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) (Annexure A-8) and the Hon‟ble Tribunal was pleased to quash the termination orders and directed to reinstate the applicants in service and granted notional benefits. The said Order has attained finality upto High Court and Supreme Court vide judgement dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure A-9) and 02.02.2023 (Annexure A-10) and the applicants therein were reinstated into service vide Order dated 02.03.2023 (Annexure A-11). The operative paras 20, 21 and 22 of the said judgement are reproduced as hereunder:-
20. So, the question is as to whether if a person is tried for a charge in a criminal proceeding and in departmental proceedings and in criminal trial he is acquitted honourably and not on the basis of any doubt etc and charges in both the proceedings are same or identical, his acquittal on criminal side would automatically lead to his acquittal in the departmental case as well. This issue is no longer res integra and stands settled by a Division Bench of this Tribunal at Delhi in the case of CONSTABLE MANGAL SINGH VS. GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & OTHERS, 2020(2) (CAT) 1, in favour of the employee/applicant (therein), holding that indeed such honourable acquittal would result in exoneration of the employee in departmental case as well. The view taken by Court is reproduced as under :-
"17. We are of the view that the law laid by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. & another, JT 1999 (2) 456 applies to the facts and circumstances of the case, and since the allegations made against the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings on the one hand and criminal case on the other hand are identical, the acquittal in the criminal case must lead to the setting aside of the order of punishment. Though an opportunity of re- visiting the same was given to the Disciplinary Authority, it made that 21 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) exercise a perfunctory one and has just reiterated its earlier order."
21. A faint suggestion came to the made by learned counsel for the respondents that the department can be given a liberty to proceed ahead once again by conducting a proper enquiry under the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This was resisted by learned Senior Advocate, appearing for the respondents on the ground that about 30 years have already gone by and even 2-3 applicants have also died and no purpose is likely to be served by opening the matter once again more so when we already have the benefit of a judicial pronouncement on the issue by Hon‟ble High Court based on evidence exonerating the applicants from the charge of forgery. The learned counsel for the applicants further placed reliance on a number of judicial pronouncements. In the case of STATE OF A.P. VS. N. RADHAKISHAN, 1984 (4) SCC 154, it was held that if there is delay in the initiation of disciplinary proceedings, and there is no explanation given by the department, then such proceedings would stand vitiated more so when there is no part on the part of delinquent in delay. The charge memo was quashed on ground of delay. In the case of STATE OF M. P. V. BANI SINGH, 1990(2) SLR 798, it was held that departmental enquiry initiated after 12 years was delayed and without explanation as such it was quashed and set aside. In the case of GOVT. OF ANDHRA PRADESH VS. E. VEDVYAS & ANOTHER, 1991(2) SCALES 1452, challenge was to the charge sheet and disciplinary proceedings on ground of delay. The Tribunal quashed the proceedings. Held, there was gross delay on the part of Government to complete the disciplinary proceedings, in spite of the time given, thus, order of Tribunal was upheld. In the case of JAGIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1993 (2) SCT 128, it was held that departmental proceedings initiated against employee should be finalised expeditiously and time line fixed by Government should be followed. Finding that there was inordinate delay in completion of departmental proceedings, the same were quashed and set aside. In the case of J.S. SANGHERA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB, 1994 (3) SCT 628, there was delay in departmental proceedings of more than 15 years from the date of alleged misconduct, as such charge sheet was quashed and set aside. In the case of P.V. MAHADEVAN VS. M.D. TAMIL NADU HOUSING BOARD, 2005 (4) SCT 60, it was held that protracted disciplinary enquiry against government employee should be avoided not only in interest of employee and public but also in interest of inspiring confidence in minds of Government employees. For mistakes committee by department, an employee should not be made to suffer. The charge memo was quashed in that case. In the case of RANJEET SINGH VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, 2008 (3) CTC 781, it was held that in view of unexplained delay of nine years, Trial court 22 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) was justified in holding that the entire enquiry was vitiated and in declaring that the order of punishment to be null and void. In BALKRISHNA NAMDEO KATKADE VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, 2008(11) SCT 162, it was held that it was held that if there is inordinate and unexplained delay in serving the charge-sheet upon delinquent officer, then charge sheet is not maintainable.
22. In the case of G.M. TAK VS. STATE OF GUJRAT & ANOTHER, 2006 (3) SCT 252, delinquent officer was charged for an offence punishable Under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the PC Act, 1988. He was honourably acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove the charge. Thereafter, a Departmental Inquiry was conducted and he was dismissed from service. The order of dismissal was upheld by the High Court. In the Appeal filed by the delinquent officer, this Court was of the opinion that the departmental proceedings and criminal case were based on identical and similar set of facts. The evidence before the Criminal Court and the departmental proceedings being exactly the same, this Court held that the acquittal of the employee by a Criminal Court has to be given due weight by the Disciplinary Authority. On the basis that the evidence in both the criminal trial and Departmental Inquiry are the same, the order of dismissal of the Appellant therein was set aside. Similarly, In the case of PAWAN KUMAR VS. STATE OF HARYANA (P&H), 2015(2) SCT 838, it was held that Trial could had acquitted the petitioner on account of lack of evidence. Once allegation could not be established by evidence, it cannot be said that acquittal of petitioner was on technical ground. Acquittal in a criminal case for want of evidence is an acquittal on merit. Thus, impugned order was quashed and respondents were directed to issue appointment letter to the petitioner to the post of Constable. In the case of VIJAY PAL AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF HARYANA & OTHERS, 2017 (2) SCT 479, the delinquent was involved in departmental as well as in criminal proceedings on the same set of charges. It was held that if the charge and evidence in both the proceedings is the same, inquiry officer cannot over write the depositions already recorded by the Court. Findings of D.A. to the contrary would be unjust, unfair and oppressive and order of dismissal from service would not be sustainable. The impugned order of dismissal was quashed and set aside with all the consequential benefit of reinstatement in service. In the case of SATISH KUMAR GOEL VS. STATE OF HARYANA, 2018(1) SCT 801, employee was dismissed from service. However, he was acquitted in criminal case. The question was, whether employee after acquittal in appeal in a criminal case would become entitled to grant of all benefits. Held, if criminal court recorded finding that there was no evidence to prove charge of corruption against employee, notwithstanding 23 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) observations as to acquittal by benefit of doubt, it will be considered honourable acquittal. The learned counsel for the respondents was not able to show any law to the contrary."
28. The contention of the applicants is that since they are similarly placed as are the applicants in OA No. 060/830/2019 & other connected OAs decided on 28.11.2020, they deserve to be allowed the same relief.
29. It is evident that that the allegations in the criminal case as well as in the Show-cause notice issued to the applicants are identical and the respondents did not deny the same. Once the applicants are acquitted by the Hon‟ble High Court vide its judgment dated 23.05.2022 and fully exonerated of the charges, the applicants are entitled to re-instatement in services with all consequential benefits.
30. It is also evident that there were 2 set of FIRs got registered by the CBI, Police Station Chandigarh, one is dated 10.10.2001 and 2nd is dated 31.03.2004 and it is evident from above comparison that the officials in former FIR were acquitted by the Hon‟ble High Court vide Judgment dated 10.05.2016 whereas the applicants in later FIR were acquitted vide Judgment dated 23.05.2022 by holding that their case is squarely covered by the 24 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) judgment dated 10.05.2016. Thereafter, the officials in former FIR were reinstated in service in pursuance of Order dated 28.11.2020 passed by this Tribunal which has attained finality upto Hon‟ble Supreme Court but the applicants in present OAs have not been reinstated in service. Therefore, the applicants being similarly situated cannot be denied similar benefit of reinstatement.
31. That once the Judgment dated 28.11.2020 has attained finality upto Supreme Court, it was incumbent upon the Union of India to have followed the National Litigation Policy, 2007 to avoid multiplication of litigation and reinstated the applicants on notional basis.
32. That the Hon‟ble High Court has recently in case of Union of India & Others vs Harbhajan Kaur & Others, vide Order dated 07.12.2023 (Annexure WA-
3) imposed costs of Rs. 25000/- upon the Union of India for wasting the valuable time of the Court by approaching the Hon‟ble High Court despite the issue stands settled by Hon‟ble Supreme Court.
33. The applicants also place reliance on the Judgment dated 04.12.2023 (Annexure WA-4) of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in case of Ramlal vs State of Rajasthan, 2023 INSC 1047 where it has been held that if the Court in 25 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs) judicial review concludes that the acquittal in the criminal proceedings was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge, the it amounts to acquittal. The Court will be entitled to exercise its discretion and grant relief, if it concludes that allowing the findings in disciplinary proceedings to stand will be unjust, unfair and oppressive.
34. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and the fact that the controversy stands settled by this Bench in OA No. 830/2019 & other connected OAs vide order dated 28.11.2020 and the same stands settled upto Hon‟ble Supreme Court, all the present Original Applications are allowed. The impugned orders are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reinstate the applicants in service. However, it is made clear that the applicants would be entitled to only notional benefits and actual benefits would start from the date they join back their duties. The needful be done within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
35. There shall be no order so as to costs. 26 (OA No. 060/95/2023 and 7 connected OAs)
36. A copy of this order be placed in the other connected files also.
(RASHMI SAXENA SAHNI) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR)
Member (A) Member (J)
ND*