Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Balram Chaturvedi vs M/O Railways on 19 December, 2023
1 OA No.200/909/2017
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.200/909/2017
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 19th day of December, 2023
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AKHIL KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE MR. KUMAR RAJESH CHANDRA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Balram Chaturvedi, S/o Shri Darbari Lal Chaturvedi, aged about 30 years,
R/o Village Kadari, Post - Basari, Distt. Chhattarpur (M.P.)
-Applicant
(By Advocate - Shri Anurag Dubey)
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, West Central Railway, Indira
Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001.
2. Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), West Central Railway, Bhopal
(M.P.).
3. General Manager (Personnel Deptt.), West Central Railway, Indira
Market, Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001.
4. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Recruitment), West Central Railway,
Jabalpur (M.P.) -Respondents
(By Advocate - Shri Satyendra Kumar Patel)
(Date of reserving order 20.11.2023)
ORDER
By Akhil Kumar Srivastava, JM.-
The applicant is aggrieved that he has been denied appointment by the respondents on the ground that his acquittal in the criminal case was on the Page 1 of 9 2 OA No.200/909/2017 basis of compromise and, therefore, he is not entitled to get the job in Railways.
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the land of family of the applicant was acquired for purpose of constructing Railway line under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act. Since the land was proposed to be acquired for the benefit of Railway Department, a decision was taken by the respondent department to provide jot to at least one member of the affected family, in addition to compensation, as per their policy.
2.1 The applicant preferred an application for appointment under the Railways and in pursuance of his application, he was asked to submit relevant documents and was also provided with the Attestation Form. The applicant submitted all the relevant documents and also mentioned the fact in attestation form that he was falsely involved in a criminal case registered under Sections 323, 294, 506 Part-II of IPC wherefrom he was acquitted by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.380/2010 on the basis of compromise entered into between the parties.
2.2 Subsequently, the applicant was asked to fulfill certain formalities for providing him job on any suitable post vide letter dated 20.01.2017 (Annexure Page 2 of 9 3 OA No.200/909/2017 A-5). The applicant appeared before the office of concerning authority. However, vide the impugned letter dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure A-6), he was refused to provide appointment stating that his acquittal was on the basis of compromise and, therefore, he is not eligible for appointment.
3. In their reply, the respondents have stated that as per Rule 101 of IREM Vol-I, the Appointing Authority should satisfy itself that the character and antecedent of a person to be appointed are such as to do not render him unsuitable for appointment to Government service in accordance with the instructions of Railway Board issued from time to time. The applicant was prosecuted under grave Sections of IPC, i.e. 323/34, 294 and 506 Part-II and was acquitted on compromise. The acquittal of the applicant was not an honourable acquittal. Therefore, the authorities took the decision in accordance with the instructions of the Railway Board and also as per law.
4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and others, (2016) 8 SCC 471 has reviewed the entire case law on the subject, i.e. the jurisdiction of the employer to adjudge eligibility/suitability in the Page 3 of 9 4 OA No.200/909/2017 matter of selection for appointment to a post in the event of suppression of material information or false information in the application form as to conviction, acquittal, arrest or pendency of a criminal case and in the event where the employee has made a declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal trial or where the offence is of trivial nature ultimately resulting into acquittal based on compromise prior to submission of application for appointment. In Para 38 of the judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held comprehensively and inclusively various nature of eventualities in the aforesaid context and further explained the extent and scope of jurisdiction of the authority to deal with them while taking a decision for the eligibility/suitability of a candidate for employment to a post. Amongst others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has cast an obligation upon the employer to consider all relevant facts available as to antecedents, gravity of the offence, degree of involvement, conduct of the candidate and effect on the employment and such other akin facts, thereafter to take a decision thereupon. The rule, therefore, is that there should be an objective assessment of the facts based on relevant material to arrive at a decision. The discretion conferred upon the Authority is not absolute in nature, but is guided by reasonableness and the decision arrived at must be objective, Page 4 of 9 5 OA No.200/909/2017 based on relevant considerations as propounded by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra).
6. Whether cancellation of the appointment of applicant on aforesaid facts and circumstances can be said to be justified in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avtar Singh (supra), is the sole question to be addressed.
7. No doubt that verification of character and antecedents of an incumbent before appointment to a post is an important criterion to test whether the selected candidate is suitable for that post. However, the Competent Authority/employer while adjudging the suitability of a candidate is expected to act prudently and rationally on due consideration of facts and circumstances before arriving at a decision.
8. In Ghurey Lal vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2008) 10 SCC 450, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that if a candidate was merely involved in a criminal case and he was acquitted much before his date of appointment and for which he had given all information to the authorities as is required under the law, his candidature cannot be cancelled because the accused is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and the trial court's acquittal bolsters the presumption that he is innocent.
Page 5 of 9 6 OA No.200/909/2017
9. A similar controversy arose before this Tribunal in Original Application No.200/770/2017 in the case of Upendra Singh Bundela vs. General Manager, West Central Railway, Bhopal in which the Rule 101 of IREM Vol-I has been considered by this Tribunal. The relevant paragraph of the order dated 26.04.2017 reads as under:
12. The reason for rejecting the case of the applicant is that his acquittal was on compromised basis, which cannot said to be a clean/honourable acquittal. No other reasons have been assigned by the respondents in the impugned orders at Annexure A-1 & A-2. The respondents have not at all considered the judgment passed by the learned JMFC, Chhatarpur in a criminal case, whereby the applicant was acquitted from all the charges and did not arrive at any conclusion that whether his appointment will bring bad name to the organisation and whether for a petty offence, when he was young, will make him entitle, throughout his life, being criminal. To our mind, the applicant cannot be put in the slot of a person having 'criminal antecedents' or depravity of character.
13. The incidence for which the applicant was prosecuted under Section 341, 294, 323, 34 and 506 (B) of the IPC, is of 2001, when the applicant was 20 years of age. There were three complainants namely; Dharmendra, Devendra and Shailendra, who were contesting the case against the applicant and three others accused. Meanwhile, a compromise was made between the two complainants Dharmendra and Devender and the accused and the case was under trial in respect of Shailendra (complainant) and the accused. The learned JMFC adjudicated upon the issue and after appreciating the entire matter in its proper perspective, has acquitted all the four accused from the charges levelled against them, vide judgment dated 13.11.2007 (Annexure A-13).
14. This court at the end of the day is a court of equity. Constitutional application may demand examination of facts case by case, role by role while dealing with criminal law interfacing with service jurisprudence. In the present case, our conscious does not allow on the principle of proportionality, as the respondents have ignored that fact that the applicant was only 20 years old when he was allegedly involved in the said incidence Page 6 of 9 7 OA No.200/909/2017 and also not arrived at any conclusion that whether prior acquittal of the applicant will render him unsuitable for appointment.
15. The issue of condonation of minor indiscretion of youth was dealt with by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and others vs. Sandeep Kumar, (2011) 4 SCC 644. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Para 8 & 9 of the judgment has held as under:
"8. We respectfully agree with the Delhi High Court that the cancellation of his candidature was illegal, but we wish to give our own opinion in the matter. When the incident happened the respondent must have been about 20 years of age. At that age young people often commit indiscretions, and such indiscretions can often be condoned. After all, youth will be youth. They are not expected to behave in as mature a manner as older people. Hence, our approach should be to condone minor indiscretions made by young people rather than to brand them as criminals for the rest of their lives.
9. In this connection, we may refer to the character "Jean Valjean" in Victor Hugo's novel Les Miserables, in which for committing a minor offence of stealing a loaf of bread for his hungry family Jean Valjean was branded as a thief for his whole life. The modern approach should be to reform a person instead of branding him as a criminal all his life."
Though the case before the Hon'ble Apex Court was regarding the concealment/suppression of involvement in criminal case, whereas there is no such dispute in the instant case, however, the Hon'ble Apex Court has taken a view that there should be reformative approach by the authorities while dealing with the cases of the minor indiscretions made by young people, which admittedly, has been ignored by the authorities while rejecting the candidature of the applicant. 16. The learned counsel for the respondents argued that Rule 101 of IREM Vol-I empowers the appointing authority to satisfy himself that the character and antecedents of a person are such as to do not render him unsuitable for appointment under the Railways before issuing appointment orders to a person and unless the said Rule is struck down, no relief can be granted to the applicant. Obviously, the appointing authority is the sole authority to adjudge the suitability of a person before issuing appointment order. However, the same shall not be in a mechanical manner. In the present case, the action of the applicant in rejecting the candidature of the applicant by stating that the applicant was not acquitted cleanly, is not sustainable in the eyes of law as Page 7 of 9 8 OA No.200/909/2017 the respondents have not spelt out in the impugned order that how and in what manner, the prior acquittal of the applicant has rendered him unfit for appointment. Moreover, the offence for which the applicant is alleged to have committed pertains to 2001, which resulted in acquittal in 2007."
10. The applicant, in the present case has truthfully disclosed the fact of registration of an FIR against him under Sections 323, 294, and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and his acquittal on the basis of compromise on 27.07.2012 by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chhatarpur (M.P.) in Criminal Case No.380/2010. It is true that in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider the antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate. However, we find that an assessment has to be made by the Appointing Authority as to whether the involvement of a candidate in a criminal case would ultimately lead to the conclusion that his engagement would be detrimental for the nature of the employment for which he is being engaged. This may involve a bit of subjectivity, but the material on record has to receive an objective consideration. Merely because an FIR was lodged against the applicant under Section 294, 323, 427 and 506 Part II read with Section 34 of the IPC and as his acquittal was on the basis of compromise cannot said to be a good ground to reject his candidature. The authorities have also ignored the fact that the applicant was only 23 years old when the said Page 8 of 9 9 OA No.200/909/2017 incident had taken place Even the documents placed on record do not suggest that the applicant has ever been subjected to trial for the offences alleged against him. On the facts of the present case, we find that the authority has simply rested its decision on the finding that the applicant did not deserve to be engaged on account of not having been honourably acquitted but acquitted on the basis of compromise. Whether the fact of his involvement was such that this inference could be justified does not appear to have been discussed in the impugned order.
11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Original Application and quash and set aside the impugned communications dated 27.02.2017 (Annexure A-6) and 04.04.2017 (Annexure A-7) and direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for appointment in view of the observations made hereinabove, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
(Kumar Rajesh Chandra) (Akhil Kumar Srivastava)
Administrative Member Judicial Member
am/-
Page 9 of 9