Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sushant Singh vs Union Of India on 6 March, 2024
1
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
OA No.1622/2018
Order reserved on: 28.02.2024
Order pronounced on: 06.03.2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ranjit More, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A)
Sh. Sushant Singh
S/o Sh. H.S. Kardam,
Formerly Probationer in IRS (C&CE) Group-A,
Aged about 33 years,
R/o A-230, Sector-46, Noida
Presently in Delhi.
...Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr. Sudarshan Rajan)
Versus
Union of India through its Secretary,
Ministry of Finance,
Department of Revenue,
Central Board of Indirect & Customs,
North Block, New Delhi - 110 001.
...Respondent
(By Advocate: Mr. Rajeev Kumar)
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Anand Mathur, Member (A) The applicant has filed the instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 seeking the following relief:-
"8.1 Call for the records and set aside the show cause notice dated 06.03.2018 (Annexure A-1) as well as impugned order of discharge dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure A-2) and direct the 2 respondent to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits, including pay and allowance and continuity of service;
8.2 Declare the continued suspension of applicant beyond 13.07.2015 as non-est in law, by quashing the impugned order dated 27.10.2017 (Annexure A-
3) and direct the respondent to revoke the suspension and reinstate the applicant w.e.f.
13.07.2015 with grant of arrears of full pay and allowances; and 8.3 Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and appropriate in the circumstances of the case."
2. Brief facts of the case, as narrated in the OA and argued by learned counsel for the applicant, are that the applicant applied for Civil Services Examination, 2013 [CSE-2013] by filling up application form for Preliminary Examination [PE] wherein he had shown himself to be 'Bachelor' against the column of marital status. He qualified PE and appeared for CSE (Main), 2013. He was selected and offered appointment as Probationer in Indian Revenue Service (Custom and Central Excise) Group-A vide letter dated 26.12.2014.
2.1 While filling attestation forms, he had shown himself to be 'Married' having married to one Ms. Pooja J. Singh in June, 2014. In the Foundation Course also, he had given the same particulars regarding his marital status.
32.2 After having been declared qualified in the Foundation Course, the applicant was deputed for Professional Training Course in National Academic of Customs, Indirect Taxes and Narcotics (NACIN) at Faridabad on accepting the offer of appointment. While undergoing the aforesaid training, he was arrested on 14.04.2015 at the behest of one Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary in Case FIR No.515/2015 dated 17.03.2015 registered at PS Malviya Nagar, New Delhi under Sections 493/494/498A and 376 IPC. Subsequently, he was granted regular bail and a Charge-sheet dated 16.07.2015 was filed before the Mahila Court in September, 2015.
2.3 On account of detention in custody for more than 24 hours, the applicant was placed under deemed suspension w.e.f. 14.04.2015 and the period of suspension of three months had expired on 13.07.2015. Instead of complying with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ajay Kumar Chaudhary's case and following DoP&T's OM dated 23.08.2016, the respondent extended his suspension period in an illegal manner despite the fact that charge-sheet could not be filed within ninety days from 14.04.2015. Aggrieved, the applicant preferred representations on the above lines. 4 However, the respondent further extended the suspension vide order dated 28.09.2017 for a period of one month i.e. till 30.09.2017. Instead of reinstating the applicant after expiry of currency of the suspension, the respondent, vide order dated 27.10.2017, again extended the suspension for 180 days w.e.f. 30.10.2017. 2.4 While undergoing training at NACIN, he was placed under suspension and his period of probation belonging to 66th Batch was also extended upto 28.04.2018 vide order dated 29.12.2017. It is pertinent to mention here that neither had any reason been assigned while extending the probation period nor any reasonable opportunity to show cause had been accorded to him as mandated by DoP&T Guidelines and Rules of 2016. 2.5 On 06.03.2018, a Show Cause Notice [SCN] was issued to the applicant proposing to discharge him from IRS (C&CE) wherein a reference had been made to Rule 11 of IRS (C&CE) Group-A Service Rules, 2012 [hereinafter referred to as IRS Rules, 2012] and Clause 10 of offer of appointment dated 26.12.014 to cast stigma upon him for contracting a marriage despite having a living spouse in violation of Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In the said SCN, it was also alleged that 5 Clause 17 of the offer of appointment clearly provides that if any document is found having a bearing on eligibility by a candidate to be not in order, the appointment shall stand cancelled.
2.6 The applicant filed a detailed reply to the aforesaid SCN, inter alia, stating that the SCN has been issued in the guise of punitive order, casting stigma upon him without following a disciplinary proceedings under IRS Rules, 2012. There is no finding of misconduct except his involvement in a criminal case to show his unsatisfactory performance during the period of probation. The fabricated criminal case got registered by one Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary accusing the applicant to have married her on 23.05.2011, is based on a certificate issued by Arya Samaj, Jamuna Bazaar, which organization has already been treated to be a fictitious organization by District Judge observing that its credibility has not been sanctified by law. The applicant also took the ground that Arya Samaj is still under the scanner of Delhi Police on the directions of Hon'ble High Court. Hence, the Chargesheet filed in a Criminal Court on the basis of an illegal marriage certificate does not support the case of the complainant Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary.
62.7 In the criminal case, the complainant was examined and cross-examined. In her cross examination, falsity of the fabricated case has already been established as she had admitted in her statement made under Section 164 Cr.PC that she had already completed MA in Political Science and LLB. The complainant in the said criminal case further stated that while filling up admission forms in both the cases in 2013, she had not mentioned her marital status as 'Married' and rather disclosed it to be 'Unmarried'. This clearly proves that she has falsely implicated the applicant and dragged him to unnecessary litigation for reasons best known to her. 2.8 The applicant has already questioned his continued suspension beyond 90 days but the respondent did not respond to his representations for revocation of suspension and by implication, the suspension of the applicant from 13.07.2015 was rendered non est in law. Hence, he is entitled to be reinstated in service w.e.f. 14.07.2015 with all consequential benefits. 2.9 As per Rule 21 of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964, if a person is found to have contracted a marriage having living spouse renders him ineligible. Merely on registration of FIR and without conclusion of the criminal 7 case, the respondent is estopped from assuming that the applicant is guilty of bigamy. Hence, on ipse dixit suspicion, surmises and conjectures, the power of discharge has also been abused. The applicant had completed the probation period of two years. Therefore, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2012 which provides that decision for extension of probation should be taken within eight weeks after expiry of initial period of probation with communication to the applicant with reasons, but that has not been done in his case. To illustrate this ground, it is stated that the applicant was appointed on 01.09.2014 and completed the probation of two years on 31.08.2016. As such, probation period as per Rule 6 would have been extended by 30.10.2016 whereas the respondent extended the same vide order dated 29.12.2017, which is not sustainable in law. Moreover, the applicant right from his arrest on 14.04.2015 has been under suspension and was not assigned any official duties to perform. In such an event, his progress cannot be assessed. Hence, the Show Cause Notice is a gross abuse and misuse of para XVII of the offer of appointment and also Rule 6(1) of IRS Rules, 2012 as the condition precedent for cancellation of appointment is 8 that the document having an eligibility furnished by the officer has not been found to be in order. However, declaration made by the applicant on 09.01.2015 disclosing the name of his wife as Pooja J. Singh is not a forged or false document whereas the authenticity of the marriage certificate of Nidhi Chaudhary dated 23.05.2011 is itself illegal and non est and does not confer any evidentiary value or any credible proof of the alleged second marriage. As the applicant has not been given an effective opportunity to defend, the impugned Show Cause Notice is in violation of Article 311 of the Constitution of India.
2.10 In support of his arguments, learned counsel for the applicant relied upon the following citations:-
i) Parshotam Lal Dhingra vs. Union of India [AIR 1958 (SC) 36 para nos.25-28];
ii) Maimoona Khatun vs. State of U.P. [1980 (3) SCC 578 para nos. 21 and 22];
iii) Jarnail Singh vs. State of Punjab [1986 (3) SCC 277 para nos. 32 and 36];
iv) Dipti Prakash Banerjee vs. Satyendra Nath Bose National Centre for Basic Sciences [1999 (3) SCC 60 para nos. 18 and 46];
v) Capt. Paul M. Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. [1999 (3) SCC 679 para nos. 34 and 35];
vi) V.P. Ahuja vs. State of Punjab [2000 (3) SCC 239 para nos. 7,9 and 10];
9
vii) Mahaveer C. Singhvi vs. Union of India [2008 SCC Online Del1622 para nos. 39, 45 and 46];
viii) Union of India vs. Mahaveer C. Singhvi [2010 (8) SCC 220 para nos. 45 & 46];
ix) Santosh Yadav vs. State of Haryana [1996 (9) SCC 320 para no.6]; and
x) Kerala Transport Development Finance Corporation Ltd. Vs. Basil T.K. & Ors. [2022 (13) SCC 271].
3. Per contra, the respondents have filed a counter affidavit denying the claim of the applicant. Learned counsel for the respondents stated as under:-
3.1 The applicant was allocated to IRS on the basis of CSE-2013. He was required to undergo training at NACIN and pass departmental examinations within the period of probation. The period of probation could be extended at the discretion of the Government, if he did not pass the departmental examinations within the prescribed time or for any other reason, in accordance with the orders or instructions issued by the Government from time to time. 3.2 While undergoing training, an FIR No.515/2015 was registered against the applicant in PS Malviya Nagar based on a complaint made by one Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary alleging herself to be the wife of the applicant. Based on initially investigations carried out by Delhi Police, the 10 applicant was arrested on 14.04.2015 and produced before Metropolitan Magistrate, Mahila Court, Saket. He was remanded to judicial custody till 29.04.2015. Since the applicant was under arrest for more than 48 hours, he was placed under suspension by the respondents in terms of Rule 10(2)(a) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Subsequently, his suspension was reviewed from time to time and extended by the competent authority. 3.3 Based on the investigations conducted by Delhi Police, a Charge Sheet was filed against applicant on 16.07.2015 (R/C No.215/21/15) and the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Saket framed charges against him u/s 376/493/494 IPC and against his parents under Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961. 3.4 Since the applicant had been placed under suspension and he could not attend his training or pass any of the requisite examinations, it was proposed to extend his probation period, which was extended by the respondents till 28.04.2018, vide order dated 29.12.2017. On verification of the genuineness of marriage certificate issued by Arya Samaj, it emerged that the applicant first got married to Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary in May, 2011 and later entered into marriage 11 with Ms. Pooja J. Singh. However, while giving declaration qua marital status at the time of joining at NACIN in 2015, the applicant declared Ms. Pooja J. Singh as his only wife thereby concealing the fact of bigamy. 3.5 As the applicant had contracted two marriages even before issue of offer of appointment, he became ineligible for appointment to IRS on account of bigamy in terms of Rule 11 of IRS Rules, 2012, the applicant was issued Show Cause Notice on 06.03.2018 asking him as to why his offer of appointment should not be cancelled and why should he not be discharged from service. The applicant submitted his reply dated 14.03.2018. The respondents, after considering his reply, discharged the applicant from service vide order dated 12.04.2018. Hence, the applicant is not entitled to any relief claimed by him and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed out rightly.
4. We have heard Mr. Sudarshan Rajan, learned counsel for the applicant; Mr. Rajeev Kumar, learned counsel and perused the pleadings available on record. We have also gone through the citations relied upon by learned counsel for the applicant.
12
5. Having gone through the pleadings and arguments advanced by learned counsel for both the parties, we find that the applicant was suspended and his suspension and probation period was extended on the ground that he was found to be involved in a criminal case bearing FIR No.515/2015 lodged by one Ms. Nidhi Chaudhary. According to the applicant, after expiry of 90 days and without having issued a charge sheet, his suspension would have automatically revoked as per the Rules on the subject. He also stated that the respondents extended his probation vide order dated 29.12.2017 whereas he would have completed the probation period by 31.08.2016 itself had he not been put under suspension. 5.1 In the criminal case against the applicant, learned counsel for the applicant placed before us decision dated 09.06.2023 passed by the Court of Ms. Neha, Additional Sessions Judge (Special Fast Track Court), South-West Saket, New Delhi in the case of State of GNCT of Delhi vs. Sushant Singh & Ors., which has been taken on record. We have gone through the aforesaid decision and found that the applicant has been acquitted by the criminal court as the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, against the accused persons. 13 5.2 Since the reason for discharge of the applicant from Indian Revenue Service (Custom and Central Excise) wa based upon the criminal case emanating from FIR No.515/2015, which finally culminated in his acquittal, we are of the considered opinion that the aforementioned discharge from service cannot remain in force. As a sequel to this, his suspension is also not sustainable in the eyes of law.
5.3 In view of the above discussion, we dispose of the instant OA with the following directions:-
i) The respondent is directed to reinstate the applicant in service with immediate effect by putting him back on probation. On successful completion of probation, he shall be posted/promoted strictly as per recruitment rules; and
ii) The period from his discharge from service, i.e., from 12.04.2018 till his reinstatement shall be treated as 'dies non'. However, the period of suspension shall be treated as spent on duty along with difference of pay and allowances. 14
5.4 The exercise, as ordained above, shall be completed by the respondent within a period eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
6. No order as to costs.
(Anand Mathur) (Justice Ranjit More) Member (A) Chairman /na/