Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Mata Prasad vs General Manager N C Rly on 18 March, 2025
(Reserved on 10.03.2024.)
Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench
Allahabad
Misc. Application No. 330/00159 of 2019
In
Original Application No. 330/01726/2015
Pronounced on 18th day of MARCH, 2025.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Mohan Pyare, Member (A)
1. Mata Prasad S/o Sri Raja Ram presently posted as Gangman
(Trackman) Gang No. 18, under Senior Section Engineer (P.Way)
Orai.
2. Subhash Chand S/o Sri Mata Prasad both resident Gram Saipura,
Post Somai, District Jalaun.
Applicants
By Advocate: Shri S.M Ali
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Head Quarter North
Central Railway, Subedarganj, Allahabad.
2. Divisional Railway Manager, North Central Railway, Jhansi.
3. Divisional Railway Manager (P), North Central Railway,
Jhansi.
4. Senior Section Engineer, Electrical (East), North Central
Railway, Orai.
Respondents
By Advocate: Shri K.K. Ojha/Shri Vimal Kumar Rai.
MANISH KUMAR ORDER
SRIVASTAVA Hon'ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash VII, Member (J)
1. This Application has been filed by the applicants to initiate proceedings against the Railway officer under section 340 Cr.P.C. for filing false affidavit and deliberately misleading the facts and for not producing RBE No. 75 of 2014 dated 15.07.2014 before this Tribunal.
22. We have heard Shri S.M. Ali, learned counsel for the applicants and Shri K.K. Ojha as well as Shri Vimal Kumar Rai, learned counsel for the respondents.
3. Submission of the learned counsel for the applicants is that OA NO. 1726 of 2015 was decided on dated 15.05.2019 in which order dated 19.06.2015 passed by the respondents had been challenged. Tribunal disposing of the aforesaid OA remitted the matter to the competent authority among the respondents to consider the case of the applicant again. It is further argued that during pendency of the aforesaid OA, on dated 16.12.2015 Tribunal directed the DRM (P) to appear in person to explain the facts regarding the non-compliance of the judgment dated 22.5.2015. In compliance of the direction given by the Tribunal, one Shri Anil Kumar Chhapolia appeared and an affidavit dated 21.12.2015 was filed with the prayer to recall the order dated 16.12.2015. In the said affidavit in para Nos. 6 and 9 aforesaid authority had mentioned that "said institution since is not recognized for Railway employment on account of instructions/circulars". Due to the aforesaid reason, applicants' candidature could not be considered. It is also argued that false facts were placed before the Tribunal whereas circular relied upon by the respondents had been modified vide circular dated 15.07.2014 RBE No. 75 of 2014. It was next argued that aforesaid authority committed offence under section 193 IPC. Facts disclosed in the affidavit were false, thus, referring to provision of Section 340 Cr.P.C., learned counsel for the applicants argued that respondents authority' act comes under the purview of section 340 Cr.P.C. He has deliberately to mislead the facts did not place the RBE No. 75 of 2014 MANISH KUMAR before the Tribunal, thus, argued to take cognizance and to direct the SRIVASTAVA authority concerned to lodge FIR/complaint against the aforesaid authority.
4. We have considered the submissions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for the applicants and have gone through the record carefully.
35. Before discussing the submission raised on behalf of the applicant, it will be useful to quote the provisions of section 340 Cr.P.C., which is as under:-
"340 Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195- (1) When upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in the interest of justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of Sub-Section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary;
1. record a finding to that effect;
2. make a complaint thereof in writing;
3. send it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
4. take sufficient security for the appearance for the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do send the accused in custody to such Magistrate; and
5. bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2)The power conferred on a Court by Sub-Section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under Sub-
Section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of Sub-Section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed;
1. where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
2. in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4)In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195". MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA Provision of Section 193 IPC is also quoted as below:-
"193 Punishment of false statement:- Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine; and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment 4 of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
6. Applicants' case is that while filing the affidavit on dated 22.12.2015 in compliance of the direction on dated 16.12.2015, respondents furnished false facts suppressing the RBE No. 75 of 2014. Perusal of record of the OA No. 1726 of 2015 also reveals that on dated 16.12.2015, a direction was issued to Shri Anil Kumar Chhapolia to appear in person and to explain how this letter has been issued by him. It further appears that in compliance of the direction given by the Tribunal, affidavit on dated 21.12.2015 was filed appearing in person. In para 6 of the affidavit, it was mentioned as under:-
"6. That the certificate issued by the said institution since was not recognized for the Railway employment, in view of the Railway instructions issued by the Railway Board from time to time through which a list of educational certificate issued by the Educational Institution/Boards was circulated for the purpose of employment in the Railways and cannot be considered as equivalent to High School. The Jhansi Division had also received a clarification from the Head Quarter of the North Central Railway Allahabad who vide their letter dated 23.11.2009, had further clarified the position............".
Paragraph No. 9 of the aforesaid affidavit is also runs as under:-
"9. That since the applicant No.2 was ineligible on account of the instructions/circulars, which specifically does not recognized such certificate of Maharshi Patanjali Sanskrit Sansthanam Bhopalam as equivalent to the High School and as such in the order inadvertently certain sentences has wrongly been transcribed for which the dependent tenders his unconditional apology".
7. If the facts disclosed in paragraph Nos. 6 and 9 are taken together, it is evident that applicants' case was not considered in light of the letter dated 23.11.2009 because institution wherefrom applicant MANISH KUMAR SRIVASTAVA obtained certificate was not recognized for the railway employment.
Perusal of the ordersheet of the aforesaid OA also reveals that no cognizance against the authority concerned for filing false affidavit was taken as required under section 340 Cr.P.C, at this stage OA was decided finally on the basis of pleadings of parties. In para No. 9, it is mentioned that certain sentences has wrongly been transcribed for which the dependent tenders his unconditional apology.
58. Now the question is whether the facts disclosed in para Nos. 6 and 9 are sufficient to take cognizance to initiate proceeding under section 340 Cr.P.C. against the authority concerned. In our considered view mere non-disclosure of RBE No. 75 of 2014 in the affidavit concerned will not be sufficient to initiate the proceeding under section 340 Cr.P.C. against the authority concerned particularly when applicants' application for consideration of LARGESS scheme was for recruitment cycle of 2013. To initiate proceeding under section 340 Cr.P.C. it must be established before the Court that parties concerned intentionally have furnished false facts before the Tribunal/Court. No such ingredient is available in the present matter, thus, we are of the view that prayer made in the application under section 340 Cr.P.C. is not liable to be allowed. Thus, it is rejected at this stage itself.
(MOHAN PYARE) (JUSTICE OM PRAKASH VII)
Member (A) Member (J)
Manish
MANISH KUMAR
SRIVASTAVA