Central Administrative Tribunal - Hyderabad
Suresh Kumar vs M/O Defence on 15 April, 2021
OA No.136/2021
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCH
OA/020/00136/2021
HYDERABAD, this the 15th day of April, 2021
Hon'ble Mr. Ashish Kalia, Judl. Member
Hon'ble Mr. B.V. Sudhakar, Admn. Member
Suresh Kumar S/o Mahender Singh,
Aged 26 years, Oc : Civilian Motor Driver
(Ordinary Grade) (Group 'C'),
O/o The Director General, Naval Project,
Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam, A.P.,
Permanent R/o Rakhi Village, Dungrana Post,
Bhadra Taluk, Hanumangarh Dist., Rajasthan. ...Applicant
(By Advocate : Mr. KRKV Prasad)
Vs.
1. Union of India represented by
The Chief of Naval Staff, Integrated
Headquarters, Ministry of Defence (Navy),
Naval Headquarters, Sena Bhavan,
New Delhi.
2.The Flag Officer Commanding-in-Chief,
Headquarters Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base, Visakhapatnam.
3.The Director General, Naval Project,
Naval Base Post, Visakhapatnam,
Andhra Pradesh.
4.The Chief Staff Officer (P&A),
Headquarters Eastern Naval Command,
Naval Base,Visakhapatnam. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mrs. L. Pranathi Reddy, Addl. CGSC)
---
Page 1 of 8
OA No.136/2021
ORAL ORDER
(As per Hon'ble Mr.B.V.Sudhakar, Administrative Member) Through Video Conferencing:
2. The OA is filed in regard to termination of the services of the applicant by invoking CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965.
3. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant was appointed as Civilian Motor Driver in the respondents organization on 25.8.2020 against notification issued by the respondents from 27.7.2019 to 2.8.2019 in Employment News. However, while submitting the attestation form against column 12, regarding police cases pending against him, the applicant has tick marked the option 'No' and later, on 28.8.2020 after joining the respondents organization, he gave a letter that he was involved in 3 criminal cases and was acquitted in the same. Based on the letter submitted, applicant's services were terminated for suppression of information, invoking Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, vide order dtd. 22.1.2021. Aggrieved, OA is filed.
4. The contentions of the applicant are that he studied up to 10th standard and was not conversant with English language and therefore, took the assistance of an English knowing person in filling up the attestation form. Hence, the information given against Col. 12 was by mistake and not intentional. Later, with the help of the LDC in the respondents office, he gave the information regarding the criminal cases and his acquittal, on his own, vide his letter dt.28.8.2020. The Police verification certificate dated 26.6.2020 submitted by the applicant contained information about the criminal cases. The attestation form did not contain Hindi translation. The Page 2 of 8 OA No.136/2021 cases arose because of rivalry between warring groups in the village and that he was unnecessarily dragged into the cases. However, as on the date of notification, there were no criminal cases pending against the applicant.
The impugned order is for misconduct and hence, CCS (CCA) Rules have to be followed. No notice was issued to him and hence, principles of Natural Justice have been violated. Applicant cited the Hon'ble Apex Court Judgments in support of his contentions. Articles 14, 16, 21, 311 (2) of the Constitution have been violated. Applicant is 26 year old and is not from a well to do family.
5. Respondents per contra state the applicant was selected provisionally against UR vacancy for the post of Motor Car Driver and the applicant submitted the Attestation Form, Character Verification Certificate as well as the medical fitness certificate, wherein there is no mention about any criminal/civil cases pending against him. The offer of appointment dated 25.8.2020 was given with the condition that any suppression of information or submitting false information would make the services of the applicant liable to be terminated. After joining the respondents organization, applicant gave a letter on 28.8.2020 informing that he was involved in 3 criminal cases wherein he was acquitted. For suppression of information, the services of the applicant were terminated on 22.1.2021 by invoking CCS (Temporary Service) Rules. Applicant was paid one month salary in lieu of notice and the cheque sent was refused by the applicant, which is incorrect. The various contentions of the applicant are baseless and primarily the applicant failed to maintain integrity. Page 3 of 8 OA No.136/2021
6. Heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings on record.
7. I. The dispute is about the termination of the services of the applicant for suppression of information by invoking CCS (Temporary Services) Rules. The applicant claims that he was not conversant with the English language and therefore, took the assistance of a English knowing person from his village, in filling up the attestation form and that, by mistake, the column 12 (i) of the attestation form in regard to police cases was tick marked as 'No' instead of 'Yes'. Respondents contend that the applicant need to have approached a person who was good in English language. However, respondents have not answered the contention of the applicant that the attestation had no Hindi translation. As per Official Languages Act, notification along with the forms should also be issued in Hindi language and the relevant provision i.e. Section 3(3) of the Act is reproduced hereunder:
"3(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) both Hindi and the English languages shall be used for-
(i) resolutions, general orders, rules, notifications, administrative or other reports or press communiques issued or made by the Central Government or by a Ministry, Department or office thereof or by a corporation or company owned or controlled by the Central Government or by any office of such corporation or company;"
Rule 11 of the Official Language Rules, 1976:
"11. Manuals, Codes, other procedural literature, articles of Stationery, etc.-
1. All manuals, codes and other procedural literature relating to Central Government offices shall be printed or cyclostyled, as the case may be, and published both in Hindi and English in diglot form.
2. The forms and headings of registers used in any Central Government office shall be in Hindi and in English. Page 4 of 8 OA No.136/2021
3. All name-plates, sign-boards, letter-heads and inscriptions on envelopes and other items of stationery written, printed or inscribed for use in any Central Government office, shall be in Hindi and in English:
Provided that the Central Government may, if it is considered necessary to do by general or special order exempt any Central Government office from all or any of the provisions of this rule."
Thus, respondents have failed to abide by the Official Languages Act and the Rules made thereunder, which under monitored regularly by the Govt. of India on an annual basis. Perhaps, a Hindi translation would have helped the applicant to give the correct information.
II. Another aspect to be noticed is that the applicant has submitted the Police Verification Certificate (PVC) dated 26.6.2020, which contained the details of the 3 criminal cases and his acquittal and therefore, it is not that the respondents were not in the know of things. It is not explained as to why the respondents did not question the applicant about the variance in the information in the PVC and that contained in column 12(i) of the attestation forms. True, the attestation form had a warning that suppression of information would lead to termination of services and the offer of appointment dated 25.8.2020 did also state to this extent. It is also a fact that the applicant was acquitted in multiple cases and in one case, it was not a honourable acquittal as is seen from the PVC dated 26.6.2020. However, it was the applicant who came forward and gave a letter on 28.8.2020 about the mistake he has committed and that it is not the respondents who detected it and questioned him. Therefore, straightaway doubting the integrity of the applicant is not fair. Moreover, the information given by the applicant vide his letter dated 28.8.2020 was got confirmed by making a Page 5 of 8 OA No.136/2021 reference to District Collector, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan State and nothing further was revealed than what was stated by the applicant in his letter dated 28.8.2020. It is also to be observed that within 3 days of his joining the respondents organization, he has informed the mistake he has done. These aspects need to have been weighed before coming to a drastic decision of terminating the services of the applicant under Temporary Service Rules. The contention of the applicant that he cannot be terminated invoking Temporary Service Rules is incorrect since he was not confirmed in the post of Civilian Motor Driver and therefore, the said rules apply. Hence, the question of applying CCS (CCA) Rules 1965 would not arise. Further, we are of the view that it is the prerogative of the respondents in deciding issues relating to matters of appointment but any action taken need to be reasonable and within the frame work of the legal principles laid down on the subject.
III. In regard to processing of appointments to be made in cases of suppression of information, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Avtar Singh vs Union Of India & Ors on 21 July, 2016 in Special Leave Petition [C] No.20525/2011, has held as under:
30. We have noticed various decisions and tried to explain and reconcile them as far as possible. In view of aforesaid discussion, we summarize our conclusion thus:
1.Information given to the employer by a candidate as to conviction, acquittal or arrest, or pendency of a criminal case, whether before or after entering into service must be true and there should be no suppression or false mention of required information.
2.While passing order of termination of services or cancellation of candidature for giving false information, the employer may take notice of special circumstances of the case, if any, while giving such information. The employer shall take into consideration the Government orders/instructions/rules, applicable to the employee, at the time of taking the decision.Page 6 of 8 OA No.136/2021
3.In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted.-
4.In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse.
5.Where conviction has been recorded in case which is not trivial in nature, employer may cancel candidature or terminate services of the employee.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. In a case of deliberate suppression of fact with respect to multiple pending cases such false information by itself will assume significance and an employer may pass appropriate order cancelling candidature or terminating services as appointment of a person against whom multiple criminal cases were pending may not be proper.
10. If criminal case was pending but not known to the candidate at the time of filling the form, still it may have adverse impact and the appointing authority would take decision after considering the seriousness of the crime.
11. In case the employee is confirmed in service, holding Departmental enquiry would be necessary before passing order of termination/removal or dismissal on the ground of suppression or submitting false information in verification form.
The action of the respondents has to be in consonance with the legal norms laid down as at above. The applicant has also cited the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Commissioner of Police v Sandeep Kumar in CA No.1430 of 2007 decided on 17.3.2011 and SBI and ors v Palak Modi and Anr in CA No.7843 of 2012 dated 3.12.2012 in support of his contentions. Page 7 of 8 OA No.136/2021 Respondents have not stated as to why the cited verdicts are not applicable to the case of the applicant.
IV. Hence, in view of the above, respondents are directed to re- examine the decision of terminating the services of the applicant and take an appropriate decision as deemed fit in the matter, in the light of the legal principles laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the judgments cited supra. Time allowed to implement the judgment is 3 months from the date of its receipt.
With the above direction, the OA is disposed of with no order as to costs.
(B.V.SUDHAKAR) (ASHISH KALIA)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
evr
Page 8 of 8