Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Puran Singh Purohit vs M/O Railways on 13 August, 2021
1 OA to, 291/99/2016 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 291/99/2016 Order reserved on: 05.08.2021 Date of order: 13:9%:2021 Coram:
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P.SHAH, MEMBER (3) Puran Singh Purohit S/o Shri Onkar Singh Purohit, age about 40 years, R/o Village Modi, Post Leveri, Via Nasirabad, District Ajmer.
.. Applicant (By Adv: Shri Raghunandan Sharma) VERSUS
4. Union of India through its General Manager, North- western Railway, Ajmer.
9. Divisional Railway Manager (establishment), North-
western Railway, Ajmer.
.. Respondents (By Adv: Shri Anupam Agarwal) The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for the following reliefs: -
D | Quashed and set aside the order/letter dated 14-10- 2015, passed the respondent No. 3 whereby the offer of appointment letter dated 28-10-2014 was cancelled on account of adverse report of character verification.
ii) Directed to the respondents to allow the applicant to join the service on the post of Group-D Khalasi/Helper (Passenger/goods) with all consequential benefits along with the interest of 24% per annum.
iii) Any other appropriate order or direction the Hon'ble Tribunal may consider just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed.
2. The facts as stated by the Applicant are that an advertisement was issued in 2012 for appointment on the post of Group-D Khalasi/Helper. As the Applicant was eligible and qualified for the said post, he applied in handicap quota (HI) and that he belongs to OBC category. Accordingly Applicant appeared in written examination and he was successful in the same and was called for document verification on 30.01.2014 as he was found fit for appointment. Thereafter the Applicant was communicated vide letter dated 28.10.2014 about 'his appointment against Handicap quota in Group-D post in pay scale RS. 5200-20200 GP-Rs. 1800/- in Mechanical Department. when he had gone to the office for joining, he was not allowed to join though he submitted copy of judgement of criminal case. On 08.05.2015, Respondent No. 3 directed the Applicant to submit copies of criminal cases. The Applicant further states that there 3 OA No, 292/99/2016 were two cases against him, one case No. 27/2004 u/s 279 and 337 of IPC in which case as per order dated 10.03.2005, the learned Court imposed penalty of Rs. 350/- and in another case No. 19/2016, u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 read with 34 of IPC in which the Trial Court as per order dated 22.11.2013 have given the benefit of Section 4 & 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. As per the impugned order (Annexure-A/1) dated 14.10.2015, the Respondents informed the Applicant that the Authority has taken a decision for not giving appointment to the Applicant and the offer of appointment dated 28.10.2014 was treated as cancelled. Applicant has also stated that as per several judgements of High Courts, it is held that the benefit attached to Section 3, 4 and 12 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, are to the effect that even after conviction, a chance should be given to the person to come to the main stream. Even the courts have taken the Said view to bring the accused in the main stream SO as to detach them from committing offence." In spite of these judgements, the Respondents are taking reverse view and have cancelled the offer of appointment of the Applicant. Therefore, feeling aggrieved by the action of the Respondents, Applicant has approached this Hon'ble Tribunal that he may be allowed to join the post in question with all consequential benefits.
3. Respondents have filed their reply stating that after being given Offer of appointment dated 28.10.2014, Applicant was 4 OA No, 291/99/2016 required to fill attestation form and submit relevant documents as required. On receipt of documents, same were sent to District Magistrate for character verification vide letter dated 10.11.2014 and vide letter dated 29.12.2014, it was informed about two offences, one where he was punished with penalty of Rs. 350/- vide order dated 10.03.2005 and in the other offence he was exonerated vide order dated 22.11.2013 by granting benefit of doubt under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. T he Competent Authority on that basis finding it to be adverse as per condition No. 3 of the offer of appointment decided not to give the appointment and cancelled the said offer vide Annexure-A/1 dated 14.10.2015. It was further stated that one should not only be eligible but also be fit for appointment in all respects. Mere qualifying the selection does not hold him entitled unless his character antecedents are found just and legal. Admittedly Applicant had been found guilty of the offence and the same wnvolves moral turpitude and, therefore, his submission that he is not guilty cannot be accepted. Therefore, cancellation of his appointment by rejecting the offer of appointment is just and legal.
4. Applicant has not filed Rejoinder denying the contentions of the Respondents.
5OA No, 291/99/2016
5. Heard the parties through video conference and perused the material available on record including the judgements cited by the parties.
6. Learned Counsels for the Applicant as well as the Respondents reiterated their submissions made earlier.
7. After hearing both the parties and going through the Pleadings, it is seen that the Applicant being eligible was Considered for the appointment on Group-D post Khalasi/Helper in Handicap quota as per advertisement issued by the Respondents in 2012 subject to conditions including character verification. Before giving offer of appointment, the Applicant Ww ired to fill the Attestation Form disclosing all the as requir information as required and Applicant disclosed about the criminal cases against him. It is seen that as per letter dated 29.12.2014 of the District Magistrate, Ajmer, it was stated that a case was registered against the Applicant under case No. 27/04 u/s 239, 337 of IPC and Applicant was punished vide order dated 10.03.2005. with a penalty of Rs. 350/-. It was also informed that in another case No. 19/2006 for offence u/s 147, 148, 149, 323, 325 read with Section 34 of IPC wherein under challan No. 20/2006, the Court vide its order dated 22.11.2013 had exonerated the Applicant by granting him benefit under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Accordingly as per the terms of advertisement, condition No. 3, Competent Authority did not find he Pere ne the Applicant fit for appointment and accordingly cancelled the said offer of appointment dated 28.10.2014.
8. On going through the offer of appointment dated 28.10.2014 (Annexure-A/2), condition No. 3 is very clear that before appointment, character antecedents would be verified by concerned District Magistrate and if there are adverse remarks , the said offer of appointment may be treated as cancelled. We have observed that the Competent Authority as per condition no.3 of the offer of appointment on finding adverse remarks in his character antecedents did not find him fit for the said appointment and accordingly decided not to give him appointment by cancelling the offer of appointment and his services would be terminated. Thus the action of the Respondents cannot be faulted as though Applicant has been exonerated the same is only on the basis of benefit under Section 5 of the Probation of Offenders Act. Merely being eligible in selection is not sufficient as one has also to be fit for appointment in all respects unless his character antecedents are also found to be just and proper. We are not in agreement with the case laws submitted by the Applicant as each case depends on the facts and circumstances. In the present case the action of the Respondents cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified as they have taken action as per the condition No. 3 of the offer of appointment. Also in the present case the Hon'ble Tribunal has 7 OA No, 291/99/2016 not granted him any protection at the time of filing of the Original Application and now even if the Respondents are directed to consider his case for the said post, the same would be meaningless for want of vacancies as the advertisement was pertaining to the year 2012. Thus the impugned order in . challenge Annexure A/i dated 14.10.2015 does not deserve any interference as the same is just and proper.
9. In view of observations made above, as the Original Application filed by the Applicant is devoid of any merits, the same is accordingly dismissed. No costs.
(Dinesh Sharma) ~~ j nan (Hina P. Shan) Member (A) Member (J) ' f yo