Central Administrative Tribunal - Kolkata
Alok Kr Pandit vs N F Railway on 7 May, 2019
f
s: ~C7:53aE"Jfa3^-.-rr.-?''-rr>ns--r--.-- i
L£- w 1 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016
1
s
\
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL '
KOLKATA BENCH, KOLKATA
.'l
No. O.A. 350/00701/2016 Date of order: ^ ^
M.A. 350/00435/2016 •5
1 I
c-
Present Hon^ble Ms. Bidisha Banerjee, Judicial IVIember
Hon'ble Dr. Nandita Chatterjee, Administrative Member
Alok Kumar Pandit, i
Son of Late Lalit Mohan Pandit, i
About 35 years, 1
V
Working as Gateman - T under TI J
i. i
New,6boch Beh|re ^ ^
Rail'^^^uarter No. 28/8/TV^^j
/ - New Cooc* "
X ..V'
«• ^©istrict -
8
| ^
% PS*
«■
&
f
J- S5s ^ ^/^'North^East Frontier Rail^^f^
%
%
%
\ fepur^ar^Junction,
\
% V Distatett^,.JalpfmSnT ^ ^
I x :x%.-^3r®3f§
%
3 p; J
:i
N orth-ESst^F-rontier^Rail^ay,
Alipurduar Junction,
- District - Jalpaiguri,
i
Pin-736 123. »;
i.
Ji
i
4. Assistant Operation Manager,
North-East Frontier Railway,
• ■*!
Alipurduar Junction,
District - Jalpaiguri, .i
Pin-736 123.
;;
5. Sri S.K. Majumder,
CS & WI, Alipurduar Junction, i
;
5
i
-3=---
!
i
•j
2 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016
2
j
North-East Frontier Railway,
District - Jalpaiguri, '
-I
V Pin-736 123, J
Working for gain as an Enquiry Officer.
.. Respondents
For the Applicant Mr. P. Majumder, Counsel
■:
For the Respondents Mr. B.P. Manna, Counsel
,•
ORDER
.'s ■ Per Dr. Nandita Chatterlee* Administrative Member: j hi.
The applicanhsrfms^ ^approached the^Tri^inal iAksecond stage r „ _ - % litigatioiv /prite^- fronP: service by the respondent^iuthorities^fd pfeyigg f6rfih^Joll|^ng relief^uvpar^ular:-
;"I. order df^!ssue\i^Gtlhf -iCe^Respori^^fs and eafc^of &em to Iwithdraw and/o&^can^lu^Jdici^Rdfo^td from gi^fe any^>h. effect fandSI dated the J purggrted findinfegofethegBn^^^^|5^^fcted^i7g2&13, ;the pd^rted|order / | tsls2016 n w m |nti ^ .Miiiik-, m ! ®nts and eac ^produce all thexecoi-ds^^y^fimentslbe^^^iyipn^le Tnbunal reljting to z*z ;m to %e issuance^! thSpurpMl^^^g^^et^d'at^ i^Q^.2012, pifiported fihdings of the^^nqdim Officer dated 19.2_0»F3^the, purported J&rder of dismissalffrofeservlGe Sted 15.10.2014, the^^rpdrted*»p^4ei|0t th^\ppellate l A^Stioritj%iat|,d^2.28^5 and the purported prefer of tri^Revisiona^ Authority date^pS.O^acri^s conttinsd.in Annextire^Az3", )^ri^xure "A#, "A-8", "A- 12" ahd."A-i%" for beirigrquashlS'dltdTor^set aside.,by thisyMonhleuribunal. HI.
X X An %^der a&^ssue by^ir^ting the ^Respondents ana each of them to Jf-
reinstate the^pplic^i^m his service along^vitn all^^ck wages and other consequential beriefits by'^Sttng^iimTSS^n^duty^^ri'ng jthe period of removal from service. JF-
| . *KT-i,4Wl.' ».a IV. And pass such further order/orders as to your Lordship may deem fit i and proper."
■i 1
2. Heard Ld. Counsel for the applicant, Ld. Counsel for the official } respondents as well as Ld. Counsel in M.A. No. 435 of;2016, in which an t •> application has been made for impleadment as private respondents No. 6,7,8 and 9 in the array of the pending O.A. No. 701 of2016.
;
3 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 The applicants in M.A. No. 435 of 2016 have also referred to O.A. f
- No. 719 of 2016 filed by them which, at the time of filing of the M.A., was :< ;
pending final adjudication in this Tribunal. ;
'!
3. The applicant has primarily relied on the orders ;of the Tribunal ;;
dated 13.10.2011 in O.A. 62 of 2011 wherein the,, applicant had approached the Tribunal in first stage litigation. The-;i; said O.A. was disposed of with the following directions:- i l •i } "11. In conclusion the.,orders passed by 'the_:Disciplinary!, Authority and the 'i orders of Appellate.*Authority the punishment are quashed and set ■ aside. Liberty is'|ranted^to|di|cfplinta^ia\i^ority to recbr^l sc finding on the new ■; charge only rif the apphcljiljhacr!beeri pul sarnfej during the enquiry and he is.i^ven|ari^^p§ftumty to represent aglirajp^^a fln^mg if recorded in accordance in|imv.^It will be open_for respondents td^plaeq;him'sunder deemed suspdisionjn^iccordance jvld^SiMOlRother contentShS raised by learned counsel fSfe applic^^^lhe |.Apl^t open. Welha;"- ----------J any opiniorr on merit^^aSv other|que^tiop.M*ii^^applicant?^ill^be''%ntitled to cdnse^ential Imtnorfta^^&seeds fiirthej^the^mjplicant siall Cooperate. T^^e^se%e%o|nifiejld^mh^&ee mpnthj^f th\ receipt #f the Idrder. C^s^%^k8vfejjiespW^s %antified g^Rupee s one 3 I According to ffetppeg® aside ^ticl^l of £ ;
II V v « *
the ^haps after jgpn^|co^ marriage^ legally
siojKatje |p|pi^^^^id, : h that thlgun^rted i.
1 i L O' entiitedr to%btain a comr 1 !W!- w. •n % t :
circufar of the Rail^ay^B^ardl me and seaside. The a^lican/h^^^^^^1 contended thatjSiDaff frSmSquashing and i ■3 \ V^//.
setting aside the changes at,Acticle 1, ..the^pbwer AW / _ jurisdigfcion of the \ S^. p5^ \ jr disciplinary aMhoniy.,. was linfi|ed| |S rec,6r&ihg it|^mchp®'s on the new t j •1 charge which is Article *No7?&H^o£s»the«'Ch ^ges^Jp^t, the disciplinary ! -
.i
J authority had to only record hTl^fifTOngs^after considering the findings of
:1 ;
the Enquiry Officer and, after giving the applicant an opportunity of being heard, and, to decide thereafter as to whether any punishment > » should be imposed upon the applicant with respect to; Article of Charges No. II. That the disciplinary authority's actions in framing a fresh :< chargesheet in respect of Article II of the Charges along with new fwV-&/ \ i ■* ! s 5 ■f i / r 4 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 •f allegations were illegal and arbitrary and smacked of violation of the { / orders of the Tribunal.
4. In O.A. No. 62 of 2011, the applicant had approached the Tribunal for quashing the orders of the disciplinary authority imposing the "i punishment of stoppage of increment for three years With cumulative v i effect and that of the appellate authority enhancing' the penalty to •I dismissal from service. While deliberating on the said O^A., the Tribunal i:
had identified the crucial question/issue ^to be adjudicated upon, namely, as to wh'ether%iRhi^lyi;^Sul|t,i c&ul'ar^ dated 2.1.92 barring ^ #" J1 . ' ^ ■I *#»> compassionate appQihtrhent to children of secondlwife^is sustainable in :i-r ft,,. V J view of provisibns cont^^^S Lthe HinduMatliage Act.
%
hav v. 'GifB.&Afrhav &
ii .^3*'
j
.1
K. D<^$IRk996
-- ' %
J
SC M 96,3p>Jlhis K Wdrijhi & ork^OQS) 1
i •ftwsss't I
-i-; Xdre (1989) 2 fSCC
w ; I
Mliahi (supmh Xeotia
<
!'• . . !
o^flPSindihg ba the respondents I (sup^a) and MU ii and tfiht the i^starft: ^c ^ular dated 2.1.*6992^ which ^provides that \ Y'^5?. .A>y y compassionate ''appoifil fc-efferect-to ^fenild^en from second % "V... -i marriage, if'^eran^on'5 ha^l "hbll be#n ^clbtain^: st^ids quashed accordingly.
t •: Accordingly, the only issue that remains to bei adjudicated m the :
instant O.A. No. 701 of 2016 is whether there had been any procedural ;
violation when the respondent authorities renewed the proceedings and •i i imposed penalty on the applicant, given the liberty which was granted to i them in O.A. No. 62 of 2011. ■) iWx ■i ! i 1 i i i ! 5 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 ! 5(1). The order passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No. 62 of 2011 is / henceforth analysed in further detail and the following is inferred therefrom.
i r Vide the said order
(a) The orders passed by the disciplinary authority and appellate authority were quashed and set aside. 5 i i (b) Liberty was granted to the disciplinary authority to record his :
findings on the new charge. Suchliberty was granted, provided •i the applicant had%3<§pi piSotlS^^Mhe sebne during enquiry H ji l? andpfie hjttUpken given an opportunity to ffi^rgsenl*^gainst such 'N. ^ ySAf/yv ,ri\ !• 4 i1' /JLJtesmi&ai %\ 1 (4) The^esponddffts %er%ati; Ibetty to^pi^fe. the apfilitantk under !j :
| ^ m 1.; % I I (d)|Al:t other c®enti^^J^p§|^^fe|Bll:rewpiei for the^appl|cant II fete. '■ Si f.
t :the O.ASveEe^ke ftJbl (j
7 i
: ■S)unal desisted :rom
ri: j
i] . t
; f!
v]i i 'expressing an ^pinion o. iemslor £ rther IquestioJ^ I
| •fW .«*. B' %
a
l
|e)The appU^mf^wms^O authpities >
f
!!
Sfete the entire ex^rcisi wi&in ^threejfeonths / 1 al^d tttat trfe appflfeantwjvoul' consequential e enti&ed •J;
r-
jj
\ a
gra-'1 4Z1
benefits, asr
"EV*
%
1
Hence, it is Sportant^Tb^note^tharthe Tribunal had not entered into the merits of the remaining article of charge and had also granted \ liberty to the respondents to record their findings on the new charge.
5.2. Admittedly, the respondents have not comprehended the orders of the Tribunal in its entirety. The charge at Article I was quashed by the Tribunal. When the fresh memorandum of charges were issued on 6.6.2012, consequent to the orders of the Tribunal dated 13.10.2011 > however, the respondents once again resurrected (the earlier charge of \ r f s5 :• :
;
6 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 ?
r, applicability of Railway Circular dated 2.1.1992, which prohibits 3 ¥ compassionate appointment to the son of the second wife, if no permission is taken towards the second marriage. Hence,! the findings of the enquiry authority on Article I of the charges \ is discounted accordingly with the finding that the respondents had no'right to reopen a charge quashed by the Tribunal. j The second article of charge, however, is relevant] as not only did charge is ; under:-
;
(AIjJ-NEXURE) ( I; Alok KumSr. . . ufedeJ|@fNCB was appointed .|to the |Railway service in tl^^dar 2^3 01|| on||,comp^sionate ground after medical Sri ok ./kumar^Bandit, Gateman^^der .A/NCB-1 at the time of appointmenl^n Railways suBiffitted^faitfiily declaration of/fiis famer late Lalit Mohan^Kandit^s Ex-empl6yeeftwherein it^appea^'that dte nanfe of the wife of ex-emplo^ i.^^e^^Ma|l3urti^^dit i^mt. A^li Pandit which •!] was signed t^Sri Pandit on 29.5.2j30iS. On^ttfe other hand, Smt. •j Gita Rani PandjhwCarria^^halashi.,undep^SC7 C&WViN^B has declared in her j family declaration lc?tethe year 1999 mentioning^Sri^Xlok Kumar Pandit as his son. But Sri Alok Kumaf^Hanjcht^did^nof^fing the fact to the notice of Administration before his appointment in Railways on 16.6.2001. Rather Sri Alok Kumar Pandit declared in his family declaration jwith inclusion of two sisters viz., Sabita Pandit and Arati Pandit as sister without indicating the ! name of his parents.
But these two girls name neither declare by the'ex-employee (Sri Lalit 'f Mohan Pandit) nor Smt. Gita Rani Pandit as their daughter. Thus, from where these two girls become sister of Sri Alok Kumar Pandit? Thus Sri Alok Kumar Pandit has given a false declaration in order to secure a job in Railways thereby violating RB's rule circulated vide letter No. E(D&A)92GS/4/3 dated 20.07.93 as well as willfully for undue advantage which proves his lack of integrity and acted in a manner unbecoming of a Railway servant-and thus violated the provisions of 3. l(i) and 3. l(iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966."
'i ( i 'r ! '
7 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 ;
The enquiry authority deliberated on the same and his assessment \ on the second Article of Charge which has been included in his enquiry ?
report dated 19.7.2013 is reproduced as under:- f r t r i "REPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY INTO THE CHARGES FRAMED AGAINST THE CHARGE OFFICIAL SHRI ALOK KUMAR PANDIT, GATEMAN UNDER TI/NCB/N.F. RAILWAY VIDE MEMORANDUM d)F CHARGE FOR MAJOR PENALTY ISSUED BY ASSTT. OPERATIONS MANAGER/APDJ VIDE NO. CON/OP/VIG-118 (2) DATED 6.6.2012.
t.
(
XXXXXX - - ^ I..
6. ASSES
j-
Vftistra*;
OF EVIDENCE, DISC&J.SSl FOR
FINDINGS:-
/
Jf-
?:
i
$
ort of
J in Artie®!! Railways subnutted family
I
I. is Smt. Anjali ferf KumtF^ajxflt on
| declaration for the^fem99# nien^bi&i^Shn^^p* Kum&r Panditas Ids son swlMfAlok Kumar Pofeyiid njot to^^^ptice of AdministtlSbn»efore %is appointmem^n^aaj^aySapQn . 6.2Q,Ql^^ther^Sbji Alok KumarlPandit declared im^Sfaxi^Wecfa^^OTS3ll¥ttiem^p^Ssiiajiother,s nJne and inserted rfame ^St^5»§isters viz. Sabita Paruiif^a^^ j •atPLPandit jas sister Ctihg nSes of his parents. % ^ ^ v' ■%JBut -tnesd^ro ^rls^ianxe, neithefedeSlared e (Late Lalit Moha^Pan<^t)^and Sm^Gita RjSif^aadit as-tijetr daughter. Thuss from where these twoMgir1s pecame%fstgr^6f?s"hri:-Alok*KurhArT'anch^'Thus^Shri Alok Kumar Pandit has%Lyen aTai.se declara&oh^ order to secur^a jobAn Railways thereby violating Railway BoaPttls^nile circulated^yide^Tetter^N^r E(D&A)92 GS/4/3 which proves his^lack of IrifepIty^and^Scted ina#^^n'ner unbecoming of a Railway Servant ancTBfUa^wolated the proyision'i^f3. l(i) 'and 3.1(iii) of Railway Service Conduct Rules, 1966?'^^^^ The Enquiry Officer concluded that the second Article of Charge was partially proved. The applicant/charged officer was given an opportunity to respond to the said enquiry report aiitd the said defence i was duly taken into consideration by the disciplinary authority, who, ;•I however, did not accept the defence of the applicant/Charged Officer and passed an order dismissing the applicant/charged officer from the r 35 f f-x&sss=ry-
8 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 respondents' service with immediate effect. The orders of tjhe disciplinary authority dated 15.6.2014 (Annexure A-8 to the O.A.) isrreproduced as » below:- 3 i;
*
N.F. Railway i
i
f.
'•
Notice of Imposition of Penalty under Rule - 9 of the RS (Dfi^A) Rules - 1968 No. Con/OP/VIG-118(2) date 15/10/2014 A Place of Issue: Divisional Railway Manager (Optg.) APDJ's Office N.F. Railway/Alipurduar Junction * -f-' * To & ■ifei Sri Alok Kumar Par^dytA Gateman under TlfNGB % N-F-RauW-^^.* % 3*ig % Shri-f'A16©S&imar TI/NC&" was\ charged vide . ^ vide Cgri^SvicS^l^ l|(2) memorand&m MK2P12 andfa^toldefend the ______ _ fethln qhargSfckveled againf^idm . it) l|) d&ys^m^^^ich d was. ^knowle^ge by CO Sge^ffiSlail; ifaJ oh 12*6^012. C^ee^)fiitial& #ad(^ ^Bbcaitted^is deferic^agaihst the ;memSrp!dum i ^^^foun'd uff^.8fa&oiy by !■ i su,^te 18"
& t§ ;
f I 3 IT**?* m i R ir •r[ RlEfe 5 Itpn going through & SrifAlok Cum^*'fem^i^3ateman under TI/NCpMHnpfe^&i^the t&fct into the l ■■ notice^of t^;Railway Adi^istration tlmt^e?<SSs4he %ph birf froigfsecond wife of his'^father^late Lalit.gyiohan P^Mi^famer jie-^d shoup his sfep mother as his mof&er su^ressing^isf\^ll"aFsivgiyingesticSifSls,e dcelaratiotfwhile filling up forms for C©A (Compassiohat^drh€r|d Apphintmen^ft established from the enquiry r&gort. fffs^uch act is showmgjacif^of inte^ity on his part and acted in a mahnerw.jrnbecdmihg^oCaRailway^^ervantiraiid thereby violated Rule No. 3(l)(i) and 3(1)(uij^SfVdie Railway Service (Conduct) Rules, 1966 and as such Article-I of charge sheet, tb^B^SxteMt^ef^X&h hharge, is proved, Sri Alok Kumar Pandit, Gateman under TI/NCB made following two false declarations at the time of initial appointment for securing Railway service:-
1. He made false declaration that Suit. Anjali Pandit (i.e.: first wife of Late Lalit Mohan Pandit) was his mother. ■:
2. He made false declaration in his family declaration that Miss. Sabita Pandit and Miss. Arati Pandit were his sisters. 5 Above two allegations against Sri Alok Kumar Pandit are established and thereby Artile-II of charges are also proved on account of 'following:-
(i) In terms of para 6(G) of enquiry report submitted by EO it appears that against the examination of EO (Q.9) he (Sri Alok? Kumar Pandit) clearly stated that "my mother did not prefer for family*' pension because there was a gentlemanly agreement in family discussion during the lifetime of my father that my step mother would occupy and enjoy the properties at 1 l ;18
; .
!!U iiii si! ' 5 :i / 9 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 ?
, •-! i ;
Bachukamari and also receive the family pension and application for i appointment on CG in Group-C post would be submitted' by the father in favour of me and it is pertinent to mention that none of'my step brother was having minimum qualification to become eligible fqr Group-C post. Thus it proves that the fact for eligibility criteria for getting compassionate ground appointment was known to him and he has given impression that as if he is the son born from the l8t wife Smt. Anjali Pandit and even not indicated Manik Pandit and Hiralal Pandit his step brother or bom by the wife Smt. Anjali Pnadit and clearly signed himself against the family particulars of the Ex. Employee column on 29.5.2000 in scripting "The above particulars has been explained by me". Hence his involvement in family dispute to have the Railway job cannot be ruled out and above facts prove that he made false declaration that Smt. Anjali Pandit was his mother. $
(ii) After verification of all records of his father late Lalit Mohan Pandit and in terms of Para 7 of enquiry report submitted by EO, it is evidently proved that Sri Alok, Kumar- -Pandit, gave false declaration that Miss Sabita Pandit and Miss A^rati Pandit were^his-sisters. In fact no such girls ever existed •and it waaacceptedlbyaCO during^the course of enquiry.
% 101,1 '3* * f JSi- i Considering'all aspBct^mia application of miliq|iy5'SijestabHshed that the CO, Sri Alok/kumlx %a&dit, Gateman under TI/NCB&^s indiilged himself in fraudulent ac^^giving false de.claratign■ Thus Sri Pmidit failed to maintain ;%bsplute integrlb^^^^^teftvmanner UttSecomiri^of Railway Servant aifu thereby vioiSed Rule No. ^}(iy^^s3(I)(iij) of thej<ailwhy Services (Conduct) Rules, 196^ \ 1 i' I #' ' % ' HencSfe meet ie?%nd o^»iulti& 1 1 11 / !i |ejundersign.ed^as passed^the flowing ^\ /ord^sf | . 1' | "Srr^dk Kum^;Eandit.trG^^ LTI/N.CB..iafrmerebv disiflissecfe from 'Hi I RailWay service mth"iminedi^^e m i.-' : f •i I•m • a, % rj [? {■ 4: k (Vii^bdpKumar Meenal % 5 | I j, *b Hsr fgf- ilt ^ags^Operajtions MlMger f if)' % N^^ailway, Aiipufduar id iff- [;
p
% ' '
!? ^P^iature of Disciplinary J
1I if
P^Au
i # ■■ $
An. appedf if^liny agairis^ the above orders fi^stp^DOj^.A^)J (Nsft Higher Authority)^ {S^fided th<^ same is preferred withiii 45'ftdky^ irom me date of rec^fiW^. ^{/ / J1/ % Copy to% X, ■ , >• .
1. DOM/^RDJ y
2. DRM(P)/APDJ xordrind information and necessary a^bn please.
For DRM(O)/APDJ"
\ At this stage, we deem it necessary to analyse the reasoning of the 5 disciplinary authority as follows:-
(a) That, the applicant did not bring into the notice of Railway Administration that he was actually the spn of the second wife } of his father; the latter having retired voluntarily on 10.3.1999, > t expired on 15.9.2006.
?
) + 1 ! ;
i f ■{ ?
10 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016
(b)That, the applicant has shown his step mother,p who is actually i i // | the first wife of his father, as his own mother 7while filling up ! the forms of compassionate ground appointment.
13(c) That, the applicant had made two false declarations at the time of his initial appointment with the respondent Authorities:
(i) That, the first wife of his father, an ex-Jemployee of the r.
j respondent authorities, was his mother; • i
(ii) That, he had two sisters Ms. -Sabita Pan'dit and Ms. Arati Pandit in his family Son. % ■r ; dec # r % The' dis^^Siary % as per^lrdlrs of the p Tribunal <yaijjfeto that 't^^s.a^ip were i i adec#a^w>roved : :' j^'ancu JH the a||§ean! had s 1 'l indulged^n a prity, finding! him i guilty opting in aSanne^i^^^^S^bjf"Kailw^S^rvant mS thlreby I r ! r% itj violatinl Rtle 3(I)(i) ai^^ro(m| of t|e teaihv^^rvice;s (Condygt) IfUles, I | 1; !| f & 1966||dismisse^t^J^^fet^^^^^^^e^^pellate auth^ty as j : well revirfiotiai1 ah^thSity upheld the wdefi o|V% disjSplinaiy I 'S r, \ V^:-, authority'Wid^beii^ a^ghfetred^^^e^afpicmit %ias ^pprpached the _^V'/ / H Tribunal i 5.3 The respondentSghave cSfitroverted^fhe claim^f the applicant with the averment that a fresh memorandum of charges was issued to the r i applicant on the basis of the liberty granted by the Tribunal in O.A. 62 of 2011. That, a proper enquiry was set up by the disciplinary authority and that the disciplinary authority, having confined himself only to the ■ i new charge, imposed the penalty of dismissal from the Railway service.
! The respondents also brought into light the fact that the step
J
•J
: mother of the applicant, who is the first wife of the ex-employee of the
i f
'j
i
t
i (VS!? f
s
r
i
■
,:v'- . •j
11 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 $
/
'-w
O •//
i
a
respondent authorities had filed an O.A. 719 of 2016, praying for compassionate appointment in favour of her own son skri Pradip Kumar rv s t ■! r Pandit.
;
The respondents have cited a number of judgments with regard to the non-eligibility of the ward of the second wife towards compassionate ; i ground appointment namely:- 1 t r' *! fij Judgement of Hon'ble High Court of Jhcirkand in WP (S) No. 4461 of 2008, WP(S) 1083 of.2010 in Basanti Devi's akash v. VOI & % £ % ■ *■ %\ ors.
\
m/ Or^ • ■%
9
Ifrbunal % if: 1 /' ,\
*
'rit 0
L'1 ^
I: j!
i
R'.#
66i
I
)
fe*® '|
M j
| Th^j-esponden&have^c :rj.
h flames HwariWevi
£
&M35) as not apDhcable in ftl i •'■: ••• *R-
f|he case oLt^^phcll^i^te^^imiMy^e^ed that the ratio 4 a X % \ mk^rsfotfkni Jfumar, as referred to i^osan^^De]^ A fails fsi^a;
i
t
:• . ^^orKtiie^ase.of &e^appJjg^t^'^ ^ % ' ^
i to s !) y
.r & & applied the
TriWnal 'ih^O.A,^N^6W o| 20.ld ^kad cori^usiy^ly t1 ! The ihvO.A % Sfc, ra»iv,r.. _ ratio of Y.S. Adhdi}%(suprd)T^KaiHani'J,(hj.pra)j9^Keotin (supra) and Mithilesh Kumari (supra) and hST^ld that the Tribunal is bound by / the said ratio in dismissing the circular of the Railway Board of 2.1.1992 that refuses compassionate appointment to the ward of the second wife i r of an ex-employee of the respondent authorities. There is nothing on i record to substantiate that the respondent authority have approached any higher judicial forum in challenging the decision of the Tribunal and, hence, we do not deem it fit to enter into or to reopen the issue of f 'j ■;
;
if
I
«; '
/
/ r
£ / 12 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 f
P ?
;
entitlement to compassionate appointment by the ward of the second f/ i wife at this stage. Accordingly, we do not consider it necessary to delve f into the applicability of such citations as advanced by the respondents in i support of circular dated 2.1.1992. i i i 5.4. The respondents, however, have averred robustly tliat the applicant had made false declarations in order to secure a job with the respondent authorities. This is in clear violation of the Railway Board's circular dated i \ 20.7.1993, as well as willful default with the. purpose of gaining undue advantage and shows lhe|a^ilaSfeli4Gk,rnj Mtegri%^nd actions in a €m. ~ 1 ^ ^ S: I % manner unbecoming %f a Railway Servant in viotatadfijDf thfejprinciples of the Railway feonduct Rule^ ij96o. Suc®5falsehoodf restiltdd in the ^ a applicant's4lilmissalj^oi^^idtseivile|of^he#es®ndent alfflioritles and $ *w was|up^sfel by .aai^eyision^Jau&onty 1 ! subsequently.
H ■■Si
g| :■
•[
t
5X- •iSiwr'.. IS
1
H?'
R.
fnot in Cbftson|ince
I' I 'II ii
Shot sanctifefhe same. ...««■ r|:
The Irinciple a four^ation
being rImove|! ^e^supe^fucture falls, has th^instant
O.A. A pe^onpaving doneTWrong,xanndf take Mvapfage^of his own wrong and trial by a competent Court. im.s;uch a^case^he-Tdgal maxiiff Nullus Commodum Capere Potest De Injuria Sua Propria is squarely applicable. The persons violating the law cannot be permitted to urge that their offence cannot be subjected to inquiry, trial or investigation as held jin Union of India v.
1Maj. Gen. Madan Lai Yadov, AIR 1996 SC 1340; and Lily Thomas v.
;
Union of India & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 2650. s It is a settled proposition of law that, where an applicant gets an office by misrepresenting the facts or by playing fraud Upon the .■ •r .1 ! i V.S. _ i 13 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 t 'r competent authority, such an order cannot be sustained in the eyes of v law. "Fraud avoids all judicial acts, ecclesiastical or temporal." as ruled in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu (Dead) by LRs. v. Jagannath (Dead) by e 1 LRs, & Ors., AIR 1994 SC 853). In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Besalay, 1956 All E.R. 349, the Court observed that without equivocation "no judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it ;{• has been obtained by fraud, for fraud unravels everything."
In Andhra Pradesh Stale^MnUnqial Corporation v. M/s. GAR Re- Rolling Mi AIR 199^ 0f 215i%^d State of .rr **■ ^ becn Maharas \ observed tiiat %a Writ Gowt, %wliile IexercisinSi|s equitkbfejurildiction, should nd®tct to p^bBi^MfeMt^iaf'oi^aJe^fefraud as^Cpu^s are I obliged 'n&fedb justicflby p?
f
sssssm ;r
i
bfiSbSsfdltF a ipity
nr
is, also own
1S»V
M: ■< w,4
r-% %
to prevJ^the law^pm^^^^^p^^bS^nd^^btleties in^entld to eva|elJ| . ^ '* " ' i i o ! *■ m jf I i iAffi h Smt. ShrtShti. Dmw^AjmsmShau^Bros., AIR 1902 SC 1555, 'it has^tieerijheMtasatmder:- "Fraud am collusion vitiate :/ven the tv- .Ji / \ V^/y. / most solemn proceedings in ',anv^.civilized--svstem oftjtimfrudprice. It is a %•. V Jf 4' itt-' concept descriptive bfjiu % ■:h r L/8 % -«a.r*sr2- ' er'i In United India lhsurance Company^tdf v. Rajendra Singh & Ors., AIR 2000 SC 1165, the Tribunal had observed; that "Fraud and justice never dwell together" {fraus et jus nunquam cohabitant) and it is a pristine maxim which has not lost temper over all these centuries. A similar view has been reiterated by this Court in M.P. Mittal v. State of Haryana & Ors., AIR 1984 SC 1888. 1 ! i ?
!• i ■:
■£ 3 ■f f:
/ s
\
14 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 * 5 Accordingly, as the applicant has not been able ;jto successfully 5 i . establish that his actions were not fraudulent or that he did not take isr ;
i 11 ? recourse to falsehood in submitting his false declarations; the question of procedural violations of the respondent authorities, who had acted t strictly in terms of the directions of the Tribunal, will not :be of assistance to the applicant at this stage.
i > 5.5. It is also of interest to note that the applicant's own mother, v• t >■ namely, Gita Pandit, was embloye.dJas a Carriage lihalasi with the ' ".?■ 'ii 1' -i: ! .■ '4 4 1. - I' respondent autHqgie^when the applicantrii#^s'|^htfaj?pointment on compassi^nat^^ds. badger d^osed his mothers ex^mentJ^lA S ^ \ •5 jQb^, i S' # JP ' .Iju.w 5.6. ^hir®servin^AfeNo^l|oliM0S6*wdto«M^. No. 435_ib£,20il6 for I orders, ^the^Tribun^l in ^4.g) 19 had^irectld as i O' 1 fbuis:C! I t 1 I "Ldrdounsel for rpj^&erit^e/ubrn'itsltmt'he ha^^eferred an seeking 3 time to to An-iaU Pa^ | a.
Accordingly, the£),A. i^feejforfcrd^s^ i
*•
£
% &
\ /
if jf'/-' 'l\ jf
In this fGpntek|; at^ecoMis. relevant to exarqi^e th^caiis^ of action and decisions t'dken, If any, (ih^O.A. -No. 719...,Qh'2.u«16 anil anyrbther O.A.s ;
%&jvi ^
preceding the sauhie. Reference e to thejiatfly ordeTs of the Tribunal
and also to the reply ofThe^respondents to.P:rA. No. 7*19 of 2016 filed by 'i 5 Smt. Anjali Pandit & ors. It is noted here that the applicant, Smt. Anjali i Pandit is the first wife of the ex-employee and the step mother of the :
applicant. The said Anjali Pandit had initially approached the Tribunal as early as in 2012 vide O.A. No. 933 of 2012 which was disposed of on 26.6.2014 by the Tribunal as follows:- i ' " 4. In such view of the matter, since the respondents have already admitted the claim of the applicant, with the consent of the parties, the O.A. is disposed of with a direction upon the respondents to conblude the disciplinary l i.
t 3 . * 3 s r f i.
? • 15 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 i proceedings initiated against Alok Kumar Pandit expeditiously preferably within three months and based upon the outcome of the proceedings, to consider the case of applicant No. 2 for appointment on compassionate ground and to tf intimate the result of the same to the present applicant within two weeks from date of outcome of proceedings." ( i While passing the orders, the Tribunal had noted the family declaration given by the ex-employee of the respondent authorities, namely, the father of the applicant on 20.5.1989. Although the applicant had claimed that his father had married his mother in'! 1972, the family £ declaration dated 1989 refers to . only one wife, namely, Smt. Anjali Pandit and in a total vaiianc| l^e^truth, tlie>applicant, Shri Alok %-% Pandit finds .fmer^ibri%a t ^with no specific Henc $ ■T (fi ti' If Jfjgf1 fromf the^respondl^Wgjaithxi of thdUteg and 1 testsJJPiT* adminis<3P£ttive implications .and.- dren oflIhiS second ! ?
f e^ki^s. fjfiily declaMnion.1 The wife|; witffljthe child^nj0ft^i^®^:|^:^ r /I respondents thereafter uedr'a Dur|)d|te%or^#Bn 29.10.2G^|e®sing t T-
to provide employfi^mjha^si^ L Ohe•tf!*f"aj>plicant in Om.
* No. i■i 933 of^012 fchharil^qrShe V ■!i grounds that ^Sr^^nb^SlAi Alok Kumar \ v^. ^ ffiV Pandit hat| already^been^ a^pointed^1^0^8-8®^^^ «■#' w-e-f* jfi' jf' 16.6.2001 arid, as^there e Jlifibre th^aF"ohejCompassionate appointment againsfe^ne deldymedically"'inc^pit^&ted employee, the prayer of Shri Pradip Kumar Pandit, me son of the first wife, was turned down by the respondent authorities.
( Smt. Anjali Pandit thereafter filed O.A. No. l650 of 2014 being aggrieved with the rejection order of the respondent authorities and the ( Tribunal disposed of the same on 4.12.2015 directing;the respondents to A consider the candidature of Shri Pradip Kumar Pandit: for compassionate appointment, if he is otherwise eligible, within a specific period of time.
i '>v f £ ii •.. .
) 7 5 £ •-.i' 16 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 ! ?
While issuing such orders, the Tribunal deliberated as to whether Shri !/ ¥ft j Pradip Kumar Pandit was eligible to get compassionate appointment despite the fact that Shri Alok Kumar Pandit, who is the illegitimate son \ of the deceased, was expelled from service. No consequent orders of the ?
?
respondents are on record.
:
The applicant, Smt. Anjali Pandit and others once again approached the Tribunal in O.A. No. 719 of 20X6 and the said O.A. was v ,r:
disposed of by the Tribunal with^he^following direction^:-
. ^ I s, t M5. A bare ^rusSof the order supra would ime^licahly demonstrate that r •SSR a we'ri' T'* i |app^|tio •st I rc non "JV S % j ^- % £ •Kr. PanSif^on merits t «. ^ .
I opmidh that Pramp. Kr^PSid^iSinitlthe •som%f^dec®ed or is aifumposlier in Wr- ! jid.^^The order imp 1C///l\Vv einl ii ifi 1 us%tai^rea with the inc^m^lafide, ' "* * ■jMu ;
Arbitrariness, ^on^, ^W^jon |f feTjg^ajm^upon 1 ' * ' misreadinf and |iisinterpre:dtf&e^^r ofMfe|^^s"qua^Ljf,%i 74 CorisequenQy ,lh&).A., is allowed wit^a^^^tipri tb consider Pradip Kumar pludiTgdres'lr^urp'amnielled by earlier'^msiSeration, mid wim'issuance of appropriate ,drder wShin 3 months from the^fate o^comhiunicanon of this °rd\ \ * It is noled frSm the^abO^-phat tHe|®l\/'was.^Slloy^ed in favour of '*1/ y "Sv '**~*'H ^ Shri Pradip Kum&^Pandif^taXdngJnto^ohsideratidh the fact that the "" ' " i respondents were bound to fenWider'^tW^ase of the applicant on merit.
when Alok Kumar Pandit was dismissed.
The respondents thereafter filed an M.A. bearing No. 165 of 2019 in which they prayed for extension of time for implementation of the •i Tribunal's orders in O.A. No. 719 of 2016. The said M.A. is yet to be finally disposed of and has been listed for consideration by the Tribunal.
i?
j i r I f •?
i:
' 1 $
17 o.a. 350.00701.2016 with m.a. 435 of 2016 5 s Accordingly, the scope of Shri Pradip Kumar Pandit's appointment 1/ j;
«• remain alive as the respondents have reportedly not challenged the said orders of the Tribunal passed in O.A. No. 719 of 2016 in any higher i forum.
?
i The claim of the applicant in O.A. No. 701 of 201j6 have not been substantiated either in facts of on law and, hence, this Tribunal does not consider it necessary to intervene in the orders of dismissal of the respondent authorities as, no violation-. o£ procedural justice or natural .1 ■*k-.
justice have been established^ therein. Furtner,&llowing the ratio in B.C. ■'!&. % '4 'ft iff .jSP- ' ' ^ Chaturvedi w? ofMMSgmm#, (1995)^ SCCk749, it is established^ilt the ^^e4mg| a|ams^th|^pplicant^hye Aot been vitiated b^olatio^^^^A|of^^^%ce, by^laLn of m2 No. implea&nent|fetands di^p^'ed of upon dismi^S^p^thi|\p .A be no ordljs on\cosfe _ | \J ,^h J?
\
% fe if
] % •4 -q 4*
#
%
i /
(Dr, Nandita Chatterjee) (Bidisha jfanerjee)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
r
j ?
5
SP
<
!
;;
\
i
!■
I
f
1
i
}