Allahabad High Court
Brahma Pratap Singh vs Union Of India And Others on 19 May, 2023
Bench: Saumitra Dayal Singh, Rajendra Kumar-Iv
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:110091-DB Court No. - 42 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 67307 of 2008 Petitioner :- Brahma Pratap Singh Respondent :- Union Of India And Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Brijesh Chadnra Naik Counsel for Respondent :- Govind Saran,S.K. Anwar Hon'ble Saumitra Dayal Singh,J.
Hon'ble Rajendra Kumar-IV,J.
1. Heard Sri Brijesh Chandra Naik, counsel for the petitioner and Sri Ashish Kumar, counsel for the Union of India.
2. Present petition has been filed against the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Allahabad Bench, Allahabad, (for short "Tribunal") dated 01.05.2008, whereby, the Tribunal has disposed of the petitioner's Original Application No.1027 of 2006.
3. The Tribunal has issued a direction to the respondent - Railway Authority to consider the case of the appointment of the petitioner upon his acquittal in the criminal case being case crime no.1090 of 2007. Further direction has been issued to grant seniority to the applicant from the date on which other persons selected along-with the petitioner had been granted appointment. However, the Tribunal has rejected the claim for back wages and arrears of salary on the principle of no work no pay.
4. Present petition has been filed by the petitioner claiming the back wages etc.
5. Having heard counsel for the parties and perused the record, it is not in doubt that the applicant was selected on the post of TEC-III/C & W, DSLTEC (M), category no.26. He was successful in the written examination, before the petitioner came to be charged under Sections 323, 504 & 506 IPC i.e. tried in Case Crime no.1090 of 2007. Though the petitioner had disclosed pendency of the above case, the Railway Authority chose to withhold the petitioner's appointment letter in view of provision of Rule 101 of Chapter 1, Section D of the Indian Railway Establishment Manual, Volume 1. For ready reference that rule reads as below:-
"101. The appointing authority should satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of the person proposed to be appointed are such as do not render him unsuitable for appointment to Government service in accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board to Railway administrations from time to time."
6. Being aggrieved, present petitioner filed the above original application before the Tribunal. That was decided by the impugned order, noted above. In so far as the respondent - Railway Authority had to be satisfied as to the character and antecedent of the petitioner, mere disclosure of pendency of criminal case would not be enough to establish lack of such criminal antecedent or certification of the character of the petitioner.
7. Primarily the Railway's cannot be faulted for holding back the exercise as may have led to the formation of an opinion about the petitioner's criminal antecedent and character, pending proceedings in Case Crime no.1090 of 2007. It is admitted to the petitioner that the above criminal case came to be decided on 06.10.2007. Only thereafter the petitioner could claim a right to be granted appointment as he had been acquitted in the criminal case.
8. Even otherwise, the Tribunal has not committed any error in not granting relief of back wages etc. on the principle of no work no pay. Unless the petitioner had been granted employment and had worked on the post to which he may have been appointed, that right may not have accrued.
9. Then, presently, petitioner is seeking an equitable relief in exercise under of jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No rule or enabling law is shown to exist as may warrant issuance of mandamus to the respondent - Railway Authority to pay back wages. That equitable relief has to be well earned on facts. Those are lacking.
10. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.
11. However, the present order will have no effect on the service of the petitioner.
Order Date :- 19.5.2023 I.A.Siddiqui