Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Nand Bihari Meena vs M/O Defence on 11 July, 2023
1 OA No200/864/2016
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/864/2016
Bilaspur this Tuesday the 11th day of July, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
NandBihariMeena, S/o Sri BansilalMeena, Age-35 years, R/o Village Benga,
Tehsil Baran, Rajasthan 325205
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri P. Shankaran Nair)
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Department of Defence Production
and Supplies, Ministry of Defence, South Block, New Delhi 110 001
2. The Chairman and Director, General Ordnance Facotry Board, 10-A SK
Bose Road, Kolkatta PIN 700 001 (WB)
3. The General Manager, Ordnance Factory, Khamaria, Jabalpur 482 005
(MP).
-Respondents
(By Advocate - Sri N.K. Mishra)
(Date of Reserving order 15.05.2023)
Page 1 of 11
2 OA No200/864/2016
ORDER
By Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava Member (J) By means of this O.A., the applicant has challenged the order dated 2nd April, 2015 (Annexure A-1) by means of which the candidature of the applicant for the post of Fitter General (Semi-skilled) has been rejected with a prayer to consider the case of the applicant for appointment as Fitter/General (Semi-Skilled) for which he was selected.
2. The facts as stated by the applicant in the O.A. are that the respondent no.3 issued a notification in the year 2013 for appointment on the post of Fitter/General (Semi-Skilled). Pursuant to the said notification, applicant had applied the said post and after passing the written test as well as interview held on 11.9.2013, the applicant was selected for appointment on the post, in question. Thereafter, he sent for medical examination wherein too he was medically fit. The applicant, thereafter, submitted attestation form for verification of character and antecedents as sought for by the respondents. The applicant had furnished all the required information in the attestation form including his involvement in criminal case. According to the applicant, he has not concealed or furnished false and wrong information. Page 2 of 11
3 OA No200/864/2016 2.1 After getting report of police verification, the respondent no.3 vide letter dated 17.1.2015 sought a copy of judgment of Criminal Court by which the applicant was acquitted from the criminal charges. On receipt of said judgment/ order, the respondent no.3 issued a show cause notice dated 20.2.2015 as to why his selection should not be cancelled on the ground that he was not honourably acquitted from the charges, but on the benefit of doubt and, therefore, the applicant is not a candidate for appointment. Upon receipt of show cause notice, the applicant submitted his reply, but without considering the facts as well as legal position on the issue, the respondent no.3 cancelled the candidature of the applicant through order dated 2 nd April, 2015. The applicant, thereafter, sent a legal notice, which too came to be rejected by order dated 06th July, 2015. Hence, this O.A.
3. Per-contra, the respondents have contested the claim of the applicant by filing a detailed Reply wherein they have stated that the applicant had submitted online application for the post of Fitter/General (Semi-Skilled) against the advertisement published in Employment News dated 09-15th February, 2013. After written test and trade test, the applicant was Page 3 of 11 4 OA No200/864/2016 provisionally selected for the post, in question. The respondents also stated in their Reply that mere selection of an incumbent on a post does not confer any indefeasible right to the post and this principle fully applies in the instant case. As per Rules, the attestation form was forwarded to the applicant to fill up necessary information and submit the same to enable the respondents to verify the same from the Civil Authority. In the attestation form, the applicant has mentioned that an FIR bearing FIR no. 96 of 2006 has been filed and the competent Court of law has decided the said case on 9.6.2008. The attestation form as filled up by the applicant was forwarded to District Magistrate, Baran for verification of character and antecedents of the applicant, who submitted his report on 29.3.2014.
3.1 On perusal of order dated 9.6.2008 of the competent Court of law that the applicant was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325,326 and 307 IPC. Number of prosecution witnesses were examined before the Trial Court and some of them supported the prosecution case, thereafter, compromise application was filed and on the basis thereof, the applicant has been acquitted for offence under Section 323, 324,325 of IPC. The respondents also pleaded that since the other offences were not Page 4 of 11 5 OA No200/864/2016 compoundable hence compromise was not allowed for remaining section and the applicant has been acquitted for remaining offences under Sections 148,326 and 307 of the IPC on the ground of benefit of doubt. It is clearly indicated in the judgment that some evidences were against the applicant in involvement of crime, but on compromise basis, the applicant acquitted for the some of the offences on benefits of doubts in which it clearly appears that the applicant has not been exonerated from all the charges on merit and his acquittal is on benefit of doubt and not honourable.
3.2 The respondents further stated that the applicant prior to his selection was found to have been involved in a criminal case and the competent Court of law has acquitted the applicant on the basis of benefit of doubt while passing the order. The conclusion has been arrived pursuant to main offence under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC, compromise had taken place and some of the witnesses have been declared hostile and therefore the applicant has been given the benefit of doubt in the offence U/s 148, 326 and 307 IPC. The respondents have also relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police, Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh in Civil Appeal No. 4842 of 2013 decided on 2.7.2013 wherein the rejection of candidature Page 5 of 11 6 OA No200/864/2016 who was acquitted on the basis of compromise and for want of evidence, was upheld. The respondents further averred that the applicant has not been exonerated from all the charges and his acquittal is only on the basis of benefit of doubt and not honourable. Lastly, the respondents have stated that the O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed with costs.
4. The applicant has also filed Rejoinder to the Reply as submitted by the respondents by refuting the contentions the contentions made therein while reiterating the averments as already advanced in the Original Application and nothing new has been added.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has placed reliance on the following case laws in support of his claim:-
(i) Avtarsingh Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2016 (8) SCC 471.
(ii) Mohammed Imran Vs. State of Maharastra reported in 2019 (17) SCC 696
(iii) Satya Prakash Pachauri Vs. Director General, Bharat TibbarSeema Police & Others reported in 2017 (4) MPLJ 648
(iv) Ram Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Others reported in 2011 AIR SCW 4807
(v) State Bank of India & Others Vs. P. soupramaniane reported in 2019 LAB. I. C.2470 Page 6 of 11 7 OA No200/864/2016
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents in support of his argument has placed reliance on the following case law:-
(i) Santosh Kumar Vs. Union of India & Others decided by Jabalpur Bench of Tribunal in O.A. No. 483 of 2012 on 11th May, 2016
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, perused the pleadings available on record and also carefully gone through the citations as filed by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The short and simple question involved in this Original Application is that the applicant, who was selected on the post of Fitter/General (Semi Skilled), has furnished the information in the attestation form regarding criminal case filed against him wherein he has been acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt, is entitled for any relief or not ?. The facts as projected by the applicant in the O.A. have not been disputed by the respondents. Admittedly, the applicant was selected on the post of Fitter/General (Semi-Skilled) pursuant to notification issued by the respondents and he furnished all required information including the information regarding his involvement in a Page 7 of 11 8 OA No200/864/2016 criminal case in the attestation form wherein the applicant has been acquitted by the competent Court of law on the basis of benefit of doubt followed by compromise.
9. In the case of Avtar Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee. If acquittal had already been recorded in a case involving moral turpitude or offence of heinous/serious nature, on technical ground and it is not a case of clean acquittal, or benefit of reasonable doubt has been given, the employer may consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, and may take appropriate decision as to the continuance of the employee.
(5) In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate.
(6) In case when fact has been truthfully declared in character verification form regarding pendency of a criminal case of trivial nature, employer, in facts and circumstances of the case, in its discretion may appoint the candidate subject to decision of such case."
10. In the case of State Bank of India Vs. P. Soupramaniane (supra) the Hon'ble supreme Court has held as under:-
"..........It is very difficult to state that every assault is not an offence involving moral turpitude. A simple assault is different from an aggravated assault. All cases of assault or simple hurt cannot be categorized as crimes involving moral turpitude. On the other hand, the use of a dangerous weapon which can Page 8 of 11 9 OA No200/864/2016 cause the death of the victim may result in an offence involving moral turpitude.......".
11. We may state that mere selection of an incumbent on a post does not confer any indefeasible right to the post. The applicant was prosecuted for the offence under Sections 148, 323, 324, 325 and 307 IPC and during the trial, number of prosecution witnesses supported the prosecution case and thereafter compromise application was filed and on the basis thereof, the applicant has been acquitted for offence under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC. It is also noticed that since the other offences were not compoundable, hence compromise was not allowed for remaining sections and the applicant has been acquitted under Sections 148, 326 and 307 IPC on the ground of benefit of doubt. It is also noticed that some evidences were against the applicant in involvement of crime, but on account of compromise, the applicant has been acquitted for some of the offences on the basis of benefit of doubt and as such it clearly demonstrates that the applicant has not been exonerated from all the charges levelled against him on merit and his acquittal is on the benefit of doubt and not honourably. Page 9 of 11
10 OA No200/864/2016
12. Considering the aforesaid offences, the view taken by the appointing authority, in the background of the case, cannot be said to be faulty one. Although the applicant was acquitted of the criminal offences, what would be relevant is the conduct or character of the applicant. The consideration relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the applicant. The appointing authority, therefore, has rightly focused this aspect and found it not desirable to appoint the applicant in the service.
13. In view of the discussions made hereinabove and also the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned cited cases, we do not find any good ground to interfere in the impugned order and as such the O.A. has no merit and the same is liable to be dismissed. Dismissed accordingly. Parties are directed to bear their own costs.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
Girish/-
Page 10 of 11
11 OA
No200/864/2016
Page 11 of 11