Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Surinder Pal Singh vs Income Tax Department on 30 May, 2025
1 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH O.A.No. 060/317/2023 Chandigarh, Order Reserved: 08.04.2025 Order Pronounced: 30.05.2025 CORAM: HON'BLE SHRI RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J) HON'BLE MRS. ANJALI BHAWRA, MEMBER (A) Surinder Pal Singh, son of Sh. Ganga Singh, resident of House No.103, Guru Nagar/Cheema Nagar, Near Gole Market, Mithapur Road, Near Ravindra Sweets, Jalandhar. ...Applicant (Advocate: Sh. Rishav 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. 3. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar. ...Respondent(s) (Advocate: Sh. Sanjay Goyal, Sr. CGSC, Sh. Piyush Khanna) R D E R O Per: RAMESH SINGH THAKUR, MEMBER (J): 1. The present Original Application filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 is directed against inaction of the respondentsinnotreinstatingtheapplicantintoservicepursuanttohis acquittal in the Criminal Case vide Judgment dated 23.05.2022 (AnnexureA-1)oftheHon'blePunjab&HaryanaHighCourtinCBICase RC No. CHG2004A0008/2126 of 31.03.2004. Applicant further seeks direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service with all consequential benefits by extending the benefit of Judgment dated 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30' 2 28.11.2020 passed by this Tribunal in bunch of OAs, whereby this Tribunal had quashedtheimpugnedTerminationOrdersanddirectedto reinstate similarsituatedofficialsliketheapplicantinservice.Applicant has sought reliefs as under: "(i) That the complete record of the case be called for, (ii) That the applicant be extended the benefit of Judgment dated 28.11.2020(AnnexureA-3),upheldbyHon'blePunjabandHighCourtvide Annexure A-4 and by Supreme Court vide Annexure A-5. iii) That the respondentsbedirectedtoreinstatetheapplicantintoservice w.e.f. the date of termination in pursuance of his acquittal dated 23.05.2022, with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances, with interest @ 12% p.a., keeping in view the fact that the applicanthasalreadyacquittedfromallcharges,theverybasis/substratum of allegations having been gone and had suffered for 22 years. iv)ThatthisHon'bleTribunalmayalsopassanyotherorderinfavourofthe applicant which it may deem fit in the peculiarfactsandcircumstancesof the case. v) That cost of the application may also be awarded in favour of the applicant." 2. Factualmatrixofthecaseinbriefisasfollows.Theapplicantwas appointed as aStenographerintherespondentdepartmentin1991.A CBI case RC No. CHG2004A0008/2126 dated 31.03.2004 was registered against 25 persons, including the applicant, alleging they secured employment through forged SSC nomination letters. On the same set of allegations, the applicant was issued show cause notices dated 03.09.2004 and 03.11.2004. Without holding a regular departmental inquiry under Rule14oftheCCS(CCA)Rules,1965,his services were terminated on 25.11.2004. 3. The applicant challenged the termination before this Tribunal through OA No. 352/CH/2005. The OA, along with other connected matters, was dismissed on 31.10.2006. Subsequently, the said dismissalwaschallengedbeforetheHon'bleHighCourt.TheHighCourt 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30' 3 vide order dated 27.03.2009 in CWP No. 1300/2007 remanded the matterbacktothisTribunalforfreshconsideration.Meanwhile,criminal proceedings before the Special CBI Court, Patiala culminated in a conviction judgmentdated12.01.2015,sentencingtheapplicantunder Sections 420, 471, and 120-B IPC. 4. The applicant challenged his conviction through CRA-S No. 339-SB/2015andwasacquittedbytheHon'blePunjab&HaryanaHigh Courtvidejudgmentdated23.05.2022(AnnexureA-1).TheHighCourt noted lack of cogent evidence and held that the case was squarely covered by an earlier judgment dated 10.05.2016, in which similarly placed persons had been acquitted.Itisthecaseoftheapplicantthat despite acquittal and submission of a legal notice dated 28.09.2022 (Annexure A-2), the applicant was not reinstated, however, similarly situatedpersonsacquittedinthesamecasehavebeentakenbackinto service pursuant to order passed by this Tribunal dated28.11.2020in bunch of OAs led by OA No. 830/2019 titled Prem Sagar Vs.Unionof India & Ors. and the said judgmentwasupheldbyHon'bleHighCourt on 10.03.2022 and the Hon'ble Apex Court on 02.02.2023. It is submitted by the applicant that reinstatement of such individuals, including one Sh. Anil Rishi, is evident from Annexure A-9. 5. It is contended by the applicant that since the applicant was acquitted by the Hon'ble High Court vide judgmentdated23.05.2022, the substratum of the allegations forming basis of his termination is now non-existent. It is further contended by the applicant that since similarly situated individuals who were acquitted in identical circumstances have already been reinstated, denial of similar relief to the applicant violates Article 14 of the Constitution. 6. It is submitted by the applicant that no inquiry was conducted under Rule 14 CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 before termination, which is a mandatory procedural requirement. It is further submitted by the 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30' 4 applicant that Hon'ble High Court in its acquittal judgment clearly observed that there was no evidence showing that the applicant had knowingly used forged nomination letters or facilitated such employmentthroughfraud.Theapplicanthascontendedthattheorder passed by this Tribunal dated 28.11.2020 in Prem Sagar & Others (supra)wasupheldbytheHon'bleHighCourtandtheHon'bleSupreme Court, and the case of the applicant is squarely covered by this precedent.Itisfurthercontendedbytheapplicantthathehassuffered an illegal termination since 2004 andhasnowbeenacquitted,making him entitled to be reinstated with consequential benefits. 7. In reply to this application, it is contested by the respondents that appointment of the applicant was based on a fake nomination letter. It is submitted by the respondents that the applicant, Sh. Surinder Pal Singh, was never a candidate for the SSC Stenographer Grade"D"Examof1991.ItisstatedthatSSCletterdated16.07.2004 (F.No.30/1/2004EI)categoricallyconfirmedthattheapplicantwasnot in the list of candidates or selected nominees and that no nomination was issued in his name, and the roll number associated with the nomination (1511125) corresponded to Seema Chauhan, not the applicant. 8. It is further submitted by the respondentstheapplicantwasnot terminated solely due to CBI's FIR, but pursuant to an independent departmentalinquiryconductedbytheofficeoftheChiefCommissioner of Income Tax, NWR, Chandigarh, wherein the applicant failed to produceanyevidencetosupporthisSSCselection,suchasapplication form, fee receipt, communication from SSC, etc. despite being given multiple opportunities. It is contended by the respondents that the terminationorderdated25.11.2004wasbasedonverifiedfindingsand not on any arbitrary action. It is argued by the respondentsthatRule 14 proceedings under CCS (CCA) Rules were not attracted since the 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30' 5 applicant was notavalidlyappointedcandidateastheveryfoundation ofemploymentwasmissing.Itisarguedbytherespondentsthatsince the appointment was based on forged documentation and not supported by SSC, the termination was administrative and not disciplinary in nature. 9. It is contested by the respondents that case of the applicant is distinguishable from those in the Prem Sagar judgment (supra). The respondents argue that unlike other officialswhomayhavebeenvalid candidates or had ambiguous nomination status, the applicant was never a candidate at all, asperconfirmationfromSSC,andtherefore, he cannot claim parity or benefit from order of this Tribunal dated 28.11.2020 or subsequent judgments from Hon'ble High Court and Hon'bleApexCourt.Itisfurthercontestedbytherespondentsthatthe applicant was acquitted due to lack of proof beyond reasonable doubt andnotbecauseofafindingthathewasvalidlynominatedbySSC.The respondents have cited judgments in RBI Vs. Bhopal Singh Panchal (1994)andInspectorGeneralofPoliceVs.S.Samuthiram(2013),and arguedthatacquittalinacriminalcasedoesnotautomaticallyentitlea person to reinstatement. 10. Itisfurtherarguedbytherespondentsthatthecategoricaldenial by SSC of the candidature of the applicant or nomination has never been set aside or challenged in appropriate proceedings, and the criminal judgment by Hon'ble High Court did not adjudicate on the legitimacy of the SSC letter or validate the appointment of the applicant. As such the respondents have contested that the use of forged or false documentsforobtainingpublicemploymentconstitutes grave misconduct. Reliance is placed on the Hon'ble Apex Court decision in IndianOilCorporationLtd.v.RajendraD.Harmalkar,2022 SCC Online SC 486, to argue that such misconduct justifies dismissal. 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30' 6 11. We have heard ld. counsel for both the sides and perused the materialonrecord.Fromthepleadingsandtherecord,itisundisputed fact that the applicant challenged conviction judgment dated 12.01.2015 passed by Special CBI Court, Patiala, sentencing the applicant under Sections420,471,and120-BIPC,throughCRA-SNo. 339-SB/2015andwasacquittedbytheHon'blePunjab&HaryanaHigh Court vide judgment dated 23.05.2022 (Annexure A-1) along with similarly situated persons at par with other similarly situated persons acquittedvideearlierjudgmentdated10.05.2016.Thereafter,similarly situatedpersonsacquittedinthesamecaseastheapplicanthavebeen reinstated pursuant to order passedbythisTribunaldated28.11.2020 inbunchofOAsledbyOANo.830/2019titledPremSagarVs.Unionof India & Ors. 12. This Tribunal has considered the matter. Whereas the respondents have contended that appointment of the applicant was based on a fake nomination letter, and further contended that SSC letter dated 16.07.2004 states that theapplicantwasnotinthelistof candidatesorselectednominees,andthatnonominationwasissuedin his name, while acquitting the applicant and other similarly situated persons, Hon'ble High Court has examinedalltheevidencesonrecord andcometotheconclusionthatthechargesagainsttheapplicantsare not proved. Hon'ble High Court pointed out that there needs to be a semblance of cogent and reliable evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant,whichismissinginthecase.Thecourtfurtherobservedthat theconvictionrecordedbythetrialcourtinthesaidcaseisonlybased on circumstantial evidence, which was not proved in the absence of identification of unknown persons in whose conspiracy the documents were allegedly forged. Assuch,contentionoftherespondentsthatthe applicant used fraudulent means for appointment once he has been acquitted by Hon'ble High Court after appreciating all the evidenceon 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30' 7 recordisnottenable.Thefindingsrecordedbythedepartmentleading to termination of the applicant were based on circumstantial evidence only without conducting any proper enquiry under CCS(CCA) Rules, 1965. As such, contention of the respondents that the applicant was terminated pursuant to anindependentdepartmentalinquirybasedon verified findings is also not tenable and the same deserves to be quashed. Furthermore, similarly situated persons acquitted byHon'ble High Court in the same case as the applicant have been duly reinstated.Assuch,thisTribunalfindsthattheapplicantdeservestobe reinstated at par with the similarly situated persons. 13. In view of the discussion hereinabove, this Tribunal finds that caseoftheapplicantissquarelycoveredbythejudgmentinthecaseof Prem Sagar Vs. Union of India & Ors. (supra). Accordingly, impugned actionoftherespondentsinnotreinstatingtheapplicantuponacquittal by Hon'ble High Court is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate the applicant in service forthwith. It is made clear that the applicant would be entitled tonotionalbenefitsonlyandactualbenefit would start from thedatehejoinsbackhisduties.TheOAisdisposed of in the above terms. Associated MAs shall stand disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. (ANJALI BHAWRA) (RAMESH SINGH THAKUR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) s* 2025.06.02 SHIVAM 16:00:13 +05'30'