Central Administrative Tribunal - Patna
Pawan Kumar vs Railway on 26 February, 2026
1 OA N0. 58 of 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PATNA BENCH, PATNA
OA/050/00058/2017
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J)
HON'LE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, MEMBER (A)
Reserved on...03.02.2026
Pronounced on ...26.02.2026
Pawan Kumar son of Late Ram Prate Ram, Ex-Technician-Iii,
under Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (Carriage & Wagon),
East Central Railway, Sonepur District Saran (Bihar).
........Applicant.
- By Advocate(s) :- Shri M.P. Dixit
-Versus-
1. The Union Of India Through The General Manager, East Central
Railway, Hajipur, P.O. Dighi Kalan, P.S. Hajipur (Town),
District - Vaishali (Bihar).
2. The General Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway,
Hajipur, P.O. Dighi Kalan, P.S. Hajipur (Town), District -
Vaishali (Bihar).
3. The Divisional Railway Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonepur, District - Saran (Bihar).
4. The Senior Divisional Mechanical Engineer (C & W), East
Central Railway, Sonepur, District Saran (Bihar).
5. The Senior Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway,
Sonepur, District Saran (Bihar).
6. The Senior Divisional Financial Manager, East Central Railway,
Sonepur, District - Saran (Bihar).
.......Opposite Parties.
By Advocate(s) :- Shri Radhika Raman, ASC
Shri T.N. Thakur, Sr.CGSC
ORDER
PER : NARENDRA KUMAR JOHARI, MEMBER (J) :
Instant OA has been filed by the applicant seeking the MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN following relief:-
KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA
2 OA N0. 58 of 2017 "8.1 That your Lordships may graciously be pleased to quash and set aside the impugned Order dated 26.08.2016 as contained in Annexure A/6 issued for the respondent no.5 being punitive and arbitrary. 8.2. That the Respondents be further directed to reinstate the applicant in service henceforth and grant all consequential benefit arising out of the said impugned order in it's quashing.
8.3 Any other reliefs including the cost o the proceeding as well as arrears of salary from the date of termination of service upto the reinstatement of service and seniority may be allowed in favour of the applicant."
2. Brief facts of the case as émerged from pleadings is that the father of the applicant was an employee of Railway and he died while working as MCM/C&W/BJU on 05.12.2013. After the death of the said employee applicant applied for his appointment on compassionate ground.
3. The compétent authority has approved his appointement after suitability test for Gr- "C" and after completion of all formalities applicant was issued letter of appointment on 03.03.2015 (Annexure- A/1) by Opposite Party No. 5. Vide letter dated 23.09.2015 (Annexure-A/2) applicant was asked to submit his reply as to why he has not disclosed the pendency of the three criminal cases against him. After receipt of said letter applicant submitted his reply on 23.11.2015 (Annexure-A/3).
4. The Opposite Party No. 5 issued letters dated 31.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 with regard to supression of fact regarding pendency of three Criminal Cases against the applicant. The applicant replied the aforesaid letter vide his representation dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure- MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN A/4). However, in the meantime applicant was acquitted from all three KUMAR SINHA SINHA 3 OA N0. 58 of 2017 cases on 08.06.2016 (Annexure-A/4). However, vide letter dated 26.08.2016, he was terminated from service during the training period. Hence, the OA.
6. Per contra, learned counsel for opposite parties have filed their written statement wherein it has been mentioned that on the top of the attestation form it twas clearly mentioned that any wrong information or concealment of any fact at the time of appointment or even any time during the service period shall lead to termination of services. It has also been stated in the reply that even in the bottom column of the attestation form the candidate fill the form in the form of certificate that he was never arrested /challaned/debarred or cost imposed by any court. During the course of training of applicant enquiry report of he General Section of Begusarai Collectorate has been received in the D.P.O. office. The applicant is named accused in three cases and in the light of that a show cause notice has been issued to the applicant on 23.09.2015 for clarification, thereafter letter letter dated 31.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 and being not satisfied with the reply, the applicant was terminated vide letter dated 26.08.2016. He further submitted that this O.A. has no merit and it may be dismissed.
8. Learned counsel for applicant has also filed rejoinder reiterating the earlier contention made in O.A. Additionally, he has submitted that the concerned Dealing Assistant has suggested the applicant to ignore the same as the said cases relates with private dispues and also having no seriousness hence it cannot be trated as suppression of fact and further more the applicant has already been MANORDigitally acquitted in all the three cases on 08.06.2016 i.e much before the signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 4 OA N0. 58 of 2017 issuance of impugned order of termination. Applicant has already sent the copy of acquittal order through his representation dated 13.06.2016 but the opposite party has not applied his mind and in anguish, issued the termination order.
9. Heard the parties, perused the record, considered the rival submissions.
10. As according to factual matrix of the case the applicant got appointment in Railway as Technician Grade-III vide order passed by the Opposite Party No.5 dated 03.03.2015 under the scheme of compassionate appointment after the death of his father Ram Pratap Ram who died in harness on 05.12.2013.
11. While applying for the appointment, the applicant was directed vide letter dated 22.01.2015 to fill up the necessary form with regard to his family details as well as antecedents including previous criminal activities. In this regard it was specifically mentioned in the above letter dated 22.01.2015 issued by the Divisional Railway Manager, Sonpur that he has to furnish an affidavit also and his appointment shall depend on the police verification report. If anything is found doubtful, wrong or forged in given information then his services will be terminated with immediate effect and without issuing any show cause notice.
12. The applicant filled up the form according to his personal knowledge on 09.02.2015. In the above form in Para 12 (1)(a) he MANORDigitally signed by mentioned that he was neither challaned nor has been arrested. ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 5 OA N0. 58 of 2017 Consequently, an appointment letter dated 03.03.2015 was issued in his favour for posting as Master Craft Man (Carriage and Wagon). Subsequently, the applicant was sent for training for three years.
13. During his training period, the Railway department send his declaration form to Police Superintendent, Begusarai for verification regarding his antecedent as well as character. The Police Superintendent, Begusarai vide his reply dated 11.06.2015 informed to the concerning authority that against the applicant following cases are pending :
(1 ) Criminal Case No. 109/2013 U/s 147, 149, 323, 379 and 427 of Indian Penal Code (IPC) and Sec 3 (i) (X) SC/ST Act in Police Station Garha, (2) Criminal Case No. 124/2012 Under Section 341, 323, 379, 504 and 506 of IPC and 31 (1) (X) SC/ST Act at Police Station SC/ST Act, Begusarai and (3) Criminal Case No. 135/12 Under Section 447, 341, 323, 504, 427, 34 of IPC and 3(1)(X) SC/ST Act Police Station SC/ST Act Begusarai in which the applicant is one of the accused and the police has submitted the charge sheet against him also.
14. Regarding the above Criminal cases FIR No. 124/2012, FIR No. 135/2012 was lodged on 20.10.2012 and FIR No. 109/2013 was lodged on 27.03.2013 against the applicant/accused. The Police Superintendent has also mentioned in his report that the character of applicant is not "Good".
15. On the basis of above report of Police Superintendent, MANORDigitally Begusarai, the Railway Authorities sent a letter dated 23.09.2015 to signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 6 OA N0. 58 of 2017 applicant that the police has reported that there are three criminal cases are pending against him in which he is named but he has not mentioned the above fact in the prescribed form. The authority also asked him to disclose the present status of the above cases.
16. In reply, the applicant sent his explanation dated 23.11.2015 in which he has specifically stated that due to untimely death of his father, he was mentally disturbed that is why he could not mention the detail of above criminal cases. The complaint of criminal cases were due to village dispute. They have lodged the FIR against him just to harass. In fact all the FIR were lodged against him with false contention and in collision with one Dharmendra Kumar. The applicant has been released on bail by the court and all cases are still pending with the court. Unless and until the charges are not proved by the court he will not be declared as offender. He has inadvertently could not disclose the fact regarding the pendency of the above cases.
17. After termination of his services the applicant further on 13.06.2016 again has given a representation to the Divisional Rail Manager (Kar) ECR, Sonpur wherein he has stated that he is accused in all the three criminal cases. He has further stated that unknowingly and inadvertently he could not mention the pendency of the above criminal cases in the prescribed format. He further mentioned that the above mentioned cases were looked after by his father and he was MANORDigitally the pairvikar of these cases. During the pendency of the case he signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 7 OA N0. 58 of 2017 unfortunately died that is why he could not mention the same in the declaration form which is only due to ignorance.
18. In that regard applicant has further mentioned in Para 4.5 of his Original Application (OA) that he had disclosed all the cases to the official of Opposite Party No.5 office i.e. before the concerned dealing assistant and on his suggestion he could not mention the above fact in the declaration form but the above fact has not been mentioned in the explanation given by the applicant on 23.11.2015 and representation dated 13.06.2015 but the opposite party did not consider the explanation as well as representation of applicant and terminated his training/services vide order dated 26.08.2016.
19. In support of his contention learned counsel for applicant has submitted that the judgement passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Rabindra Kumar Vs State of U.P. & Ors (2024) 5 SCC 264. In the above case, the fact was that the appellant had applied for the post of constable on 12.02.2004. After five days of sending the application form, an FIR was lodged U/s 323, 352, 504 of IPC against the appellant as false case and quickly i.e on 13.09.2004 the judgement has been passed and the appellant got acquittal from the cases. Thereafter, the appellant was selected and the authority concerned asked him to submit the affidavit disclosing the criminal antecedents. In compliance, the appellant had submitted his affidavit on 30.10.2004 without disclosing the aforesaid case in which he has MANORDigitally already been declared acquittal. The department send the signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 8 OA N0. 58 of 2017 information of applicant for verification by the police. The report of SHO indicated that the appellant was involved in the aforesaid criminal cases in which he was acquitted and no appeal has been filed against the acquittal order. He further mentioned that the character of the appellant is "Excellent". On the basis of police report the authority had dismissed him from government service. Hon'ble the Apex Court after considering the peculiar situation of appellant as well as on the basis of judgement passed by the Hon'ble Court in earlier cases had directed the authority to keep the applicant in service on which he was selected.
The facts of above dictum is not applicable in present case as :-
(a) When the applicant filled up the declaration form prior to that three criminal cases which have already been lodged against him and were pending in court of law in which the applicant had already been released on Bail in all three cases.
(b) After receiving the show cause notice dated 23.09.2015, the applicant vide his representation dated 13.06.2016 informed to the authority concerned that all the above criminal cases have been decided by the competent court and he has been declared acquitted.. Whereas in his explanation dated 23.11.2015 the applicant has mentioned in his explanation that there was some dispute and criminal activities in his village due to that reason the above criminal cases have been MANORDigitally lodge against him with false allegation.
signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 9 OA N0. 58 of 2017
(c) In the present OA, in Para 4.5, the applicant has mentioned that at the time of filling and submission of form to the office of opposite party No. 5, he has informed to the official of opposite party No.5 regarding the above pendency of the criminal cases and on his suggestion he has not mentioned the detail regarding his previous criminal antecedent.
In this regard, neither the applicant has mentioned that above fact in his explanation dated 23.112015 nor in his representation dated 13.06.2016 he has not produced any affidavit of that employee from the office of Opposite Party no.5 before whom he has disclosed the pendency of criminal cases. The OA has been drafted on the basis of information given by the applicant to his lawyer on his personal knowledge. It shows that applicant is still not remorseful for giving false information rather he is casting a false allegation on a government employee of office of Opposite Party no. 5 without any basis.
(d) It is to be noted that in all the above Criminal cases FIR No. 124/2012, 109/2013 and 135 of 2012 the deeds of compromise had been filed in the court in which the prosecution has not named him for the offences. It is to be seen that all the three cases have been decided with acquittal of accused persons on 06.06.2016 and 08.06.2016. It is not beyond the shadow of doubt that accused persons might had win over the prosecution witnesses that MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 10 OA N0. 58 of 2017 is why all the cases turned into acquittal of accused persons.
(e) The applicant is entering in the government services which ranks him as a Public Servant, in such a scenario a high degree of morality , character and integrity is required which does not reflect from the act of applicant in not furnishing the required information of his criminal antecedents.
(f) The offences under the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocity) Act 1989 is a social crime which has an adverse affect on the weaker section of the society. The Police authority who has certified the antecedent of applicant has shown that the applicant does not possess the good character.
21. Undoubtedly, a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in but the applicant has a right not to be dealt with arbitrary and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to the fact of the case.
22. The learned counsel for applicant could not show that in the fact and circumstances of the case how the decision of appointing authority for terminating the applicant from service was arbitrary and unreasonable.
23. In view of the above fact, circumstance and documents on record, we are of the confirmed view that the order of dismissal of MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 11 OA N0. 58 of 2017 applicant dated 26.08.2016 does not suffer from any irregularity. The O.A. being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed.
24. Accordingly the O.A. is dismissed.
25. Parties shall bear their own costs (Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Justice Narendra Kumar Johari) Member (A) Member(J) Mks MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 12 OA N0. 58 of 2017 In inquiry report received from the Collectorate, Begusarai and S.P. Special Cell, Patna, applicant was given clean chit but the report received from the S.P. Begusarai, it has been communicated vide letter dated 12.06.2015 that applicant is a named accused in Barauni P.S. case No. 124/2012 dated 08.10.2012 and Begusarai SC/ST P.S. case No. 135/2012 dated 05.11.2012.
4. Thereafter, a show cause notice dated 23.09.2015 was issued to the applicant for clarification which was replied by the applicant after two months ie on 23.11.2015. Being not satisfied with his reply, the opposite party no.5 again issued letter dated 31.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 asking clarification with regard to suppression of the fact regarding pendency of said three criminal cases against him which was replied by the applicant vide letter dated 13.06.2016. Thereafter, vide letter dated 26.08.2016 the applicant was terminated. Hence the present O.A.
5. Learned counsel for applicant has submitted that applicant MANORDigitally was not aware of the Rule and he could not understood the matter. signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA 13 OA N0. 58 of 2017 Learned counsel further contended that in the meanwhile the applicant was acquitted in all three criminal cases by the learned Special Judge SC/ST Begusaria on 08.06.2016 and now there is no criminal case pending against the applicant. It has further been submitted that the applicant has submitted a detailed representation on 13.06.2026 in reply to the letter dated 31.03.2016 and 23.05.2016 wherein applicant has stated that he has been named in the said case due to village politics in which he has already been acquitted. He further submitted that appplicant has already disclosed the fact in regard to pendency of the said three criminal cases before the Dealing Assistant in the office of respondent no.5 who suggested him to ignore the same as the said cases relates with private disputes and also having no seriousness and it will not be treated as suppression of fact. He further submitted that as applicant has been acquitted much before the issuance of termination order, the order of termination is punitive, arbitrary and unconstitutional .
---------
MANORDigitally signed by ANJAN MANORAN KUMAR JAN KUMAR SINHA SINHA