Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Sanjeet Sehrawat vs M/O Home Affairs on 14 January, 2025
1
Item No. 13 (C-4) O.A No. 474/2019
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH, NEW DELHI
O.A. No. 474/2019
Reserved on : 07.12.2024
Pronounced on : 14 .01.2025
Hon'ble Ms. Harvinder Kaur Oberoi, Member (J)
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A)
Sanjeet Sehrawat
Age-29, Group 'B'
S/o- Shri Samay Singh
R/o- H.No.15, Vill.- Ramjanpur,
P/o Alipur, Delhi-110036. ....Applicant
(Applicant in person)
Versus
1. Union Of India
through Secretary Ministry Of Home Affairs
NORTH BLOCK
New Delhi-110003.
2. The Director of CBI
Central Bureau of Investigation,
(Delhi Special Police Establishment)
Administration Division, 5-B, 7th Floor,
CGO, Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003.
3. The Secretary (NR)
Staff Selection Commission (Northern Region),
Block No.1 Complex, Lodhi Road,
New Delhi-110003. .....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. R. K. Jain)
2 OA No.474/2019
Item 13 (C-4)
ORDER
Hon'ble Dr. Sumeet Jerath, Member (A) The instant OA has been filed by the applicant, Mr. Sanjeet Sehrawat under Section 19 of the CAT Act, 1985 seeking the following reliefs :-
"8 (i) To set aside and quash the impugned memorandum containing withdrawal of the offer of appointment by the Respondent No.2/CBI dated 14.03.2016.
(ii) To set aside and quash the impugned memorandum/letter dated 02.06.016 sent to the Under Secretary (NR), Staff Selection Commission, returning the Dossier of the Applicant/Petitioner along with his attestation form while cancelling the appointment of the Applicant/Petitioner for the post Sub-Inspector in CBI with reference to the letter No.2/1/2014- ND-1 dated 06.10.2015 of the Staff Selection Commission.
(ⅲ) To direct the Respondents to appoint the Applicant as Sub Inspector, CBI selected through SSC CGLE-14 at the serial No. 812 Rank No. SL/1/1347, Roll No.2201037543 under unreserved category in the Ministry of Home Affairs.
(iv) To direct the Respondents to issue again the offer of appointment and joining letter to the Applicant.
(v) To direct the Respondents to grant the entire salary along with interest to the Applicant/Petitioner from the earlier date of joining i.e. from the date of 14.03.2016 to till now.
(vi) To direct the Respondents to grant all the consequential benefits to the Applicant including the compensation for the loss occurred due to the withdrawal of offer of appointment letter as well the promotion in accordance with their earlier schedule of joining to the Sub Inspector, CBI.
(vii) Award Cost in the favour of the Applicant and against the Respondents.
(viii) To pass any other order/s as deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."3 OA No.474/2019
Item 13 (C-4)
2. The conspectus of the case as per the applicant is that in response to the vacancy notification published on 18.01.2014 for Common Graduate Level Exam 2014 (CGLE-2014) for the post of Sub Inspector in CBI, he applied for the same and participated in the selection process and successfully cleared all the stages of the selection and completed all the necessary documentation as required by the respondents. Vide Revised Final Result dated he was declared successful and was selected for the post of Sub Inspector in the Department of CBI and secured Rank No. SL/1/1347 under unreserved category. On 20.11.2015 he was directed to submit the attestation form duly filled wherein he informed that an FIR No. 127/11 has been registered against him in PS- Alipur, Delhi under Section 323/341/34 of IPC and the same is pending before Trial Court, Rohini, New Delhi. Thus, he stated that he did not conceal anything from the respondents and submitted the same on 31.01.2016 along with some other requisite documents such as scanned copy of Photo identity, Proof/ Address Proof and Passport Size Photograph. Thereafter, on 25.02.2016, he was issued an offer of appointment also followed by a joining letter welcoming him to the Academy of the CBI on 29.02.2016. Consequently, the applicant reported for Institutional Training at CBI Academy, Hapur Road on 14.03.2016. However, on the very same day he was informed through a Memorandum that his offer of appointment has been withdrawn and cancelled because of pending 4 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) FIR No. 127/11 at PS- Alipur. According to the applicant this fact has already been disclosed by him in his Attestation Form and thereafter only he was sent offer of appointment and joining letter. Later, the CBI vide letter dated 02.06.2016 returned the Dossier of the applicant along with his attestation form to the SSC.
The applicant pointed out that he has already been employed in the Department of Central Board of Excise and Customs (CBEC) (Ministry of Finance) through CGLE-2013 and worked as Inspector (Excise). At that time also the above FIR was pending against him and still his employer i.e., CBEC without any objection appointed him.
He further stated that the said FIR was a repercussion of a family property dispute over an agricultural land and his name was plotted and falsely implicated along with other eight other persons by the complainant just to increase the number of accused persons and to involve more members of the family of the applicant. He added that he was not directly involved in that case and in fact his name had been implicated with a clear intention to falsely implicate in the dispute and to plot his name in the FIR.
He averred that after his selection and joining in the CBI he resigned from the post of Inspector (Excise) on 27.03.2015 as he was very much assured while leaving his previous settled job that there will be no such problem regarding his joining to the said post but unfortunately the CBI did not consider that the complainant had 5 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) deliberately implicated him in the alleged said case out of mutual rivalry due to some property dispute. Moreover, on 27.01.2016, his previous employer i.e., CBEC accepted his resignation and he was relieved on 29.01.2016. Till the date of acceptance of his resignation, he was not aware about cancellation of his appointment in CBI.
Aggrieved, he approached the authorities vide his representation dated 18.03.2016 through e-mail for giving reasons for his withdrawal and cancellation of his appointment. The said representation was replied by the respondents vide their letter dated 13.05.2016 with the remarks that 'The appointing authority should satisfy itself that the character & antecedent of the person proposed to be appointed as such that they do not render him/her unsuitable for appointment to government service' and also quoted some cases.
The applicant further stated that the said FIR does not establish any bad and criminal antecedents of the applicant as he has no past criminal record. Unsatisfied with the response of the respondents, he again moved another representation dated 16.10.2018 requesting to allow him to join the post in question but to no avail. Hence he filed the present OA.
3. The applicant in person argued his case personally on the following grounds :-
"4.21. All the requisite procedures were completed by the Department of CBI/ Respondent No.2 regarding the joining of the 6 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) Applicant/Petitioner to the above said post but on the reporting date only the Department of CBI/ Respondent No.2 withdrawn the offer of appointment vide their letter dated 14.03.2016 though they were aware about the pendency of the case in the Trial Court Rohini, much before the reporting date i.. 14.03.2016. but the decision regarding withdrawing the offer of appointment was taken very late by the Respondent No.2 which shows their carelessness towards a serious issue as it seems withdrawing an offer of appointment on that very day when the Applicant/Petitioner was there in the Academy of the Respondent No.2 at the aforesaid address is quite simple but its result was very much traumatic and shocking for the Applicant/Petitioner. The Applicant/Petitioner never thought that this will happen to him as on his part he had already disclosed the status/pendency of the above mentioned case to the Department/Respondent during the interview as well as while filling the attestation form and till the joining the Respondent never intimidated the Applicant/Petitioner about withdrawing the offer of appointment dated 25.02.2016, hence he was very much sure about his joining in the said department/Respondent No.2 as Sub Inspector, CBI.' 7 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4)
4. To buttress his case the applicant also relied on the following judgments :-
"(i) P. Madasamy @ Manikaraj vs. The Director General of Police & Others, 30270 of 2013 wherein it has been held that 'the Hon'ble High Court of Judicature at Madras allowed the writ petition on the ground that the mere pendency of a criminal case cannot be a ground for cancelling appointment without giving an opportunity of being heard hence violative of principles of natural justice and Articles 14 and 21 of the Indian Constitution'.
(ii) Vineet Kumar vs. Union of India & Others, OA 331/2011 - Lucknow Bench of CAT held that 'it is trite in law that mere involvement in a criminal case is not an impediment for appointment, and hence the O.A. was allowed. As there was no concealment at all the required in respect of involvement in the criminal case, moreover it has been nowhere provided either in any law or in the Manual of CBI (Admin) or in the conditions of the relevant advertisement that candidature or selection can be cancelled on this ground. On the converse in para 2.2.7 of the chapt. 2 of the Manual of CBI (Admin.) that even if a person is convict, he can be appointed after obtaining approval of the Govt., if appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that the person has cured himself of the weakness if any'.
(iii) Harendra Panwar, Constable vs. State of U.P. and others Reported in 2012 (2) LBSER 94 (ALL). Wherein the Hon'ble High Court specifically observed that 'mere involvement in a criminal case is not an impediment for appointment of the Applicant to the Post of Constable.
Moreover the character and antecedents of the appointee shall have to be verified by having an over view of his personality in respect of his moral character and integrity'.
(iv) Mandeep Kaur vs. Canara Bank and another in CWP No. 1827-2019. High Court of Punjab & Haryana has observed that 'So far as the mere registration or pendency of a criminal case against the petitioner, is concerned, needless to say that FIR is merely a report regarding an alleged incident which may or may not involve commission of some offence. Therefore, mere factum of the receipt of first information by the police cannot be raised to the level of a fact rendering a candidate ineligible for the public appointment. A person is to be presumed to be innocent till proved otherwise upon a trial conducted as per the law. This presumption of innocence cannot be eclipsed in any 8 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) other collateral process or for any other purpose. Reading anything adverse to a person only for registration of an FIR is nothing but a systemic bias based upon a negativism arising from the frustration due to the facts that the criminal cases remain pending for years together and the courts are not in a position to take the trial to a logical end within reasonable time. Hence, a convenient method has been devised to deny benefits to citizen by putting factum of registration of FIR against him in the forefront. In this way, an irrelevant fact is made a ground to deny to the citizen right to equality guaranteed by Article 14 and Article 16 of the Constitution of India. This approach is sworn enemy of the rule of law, and thus has to be disapproved. Therefore, mere registration of a criminal case against the candidate can never be a ground for denying the rights of such a candidate to participate in the process and to secure a public appointment in his/her favour'.
(iii) Harendra Panwar vs. State of U.P. & Others - Writ - A. No. - 51274 of 2007 - High Court of Allahabad held that 'Mere registration of a case in itself would not be a ground for cancellation of appointment. Even if this fact has not been disclosed by the petitioner if required to be done even then appointment cannot be cancelled. What is important is that while recording its satisfaction, appointing authority may on verification of the conduct, antecedents and character come to a conclusion that the overall profile of the petitioner is not conducive for his appointment on the post appointment can be declined. This will depend upon many factors including the reputation of the person, his behaviour in the public, his integrity and morality etc. This assessment is required to be made by the appointing authority before certifying the antecedents and character of the person'.
(iv) Brijendra Singh Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.,- 1998 (2) WLC456, 1998 (1) WLN487 wherein it has been held that 'The Rules no where provided pendency of a criminal case against a candidate to disqualify him for his entry into the service. The reason for this is obvious. Pendency of a criminal case cannot lead to the conclusion of committing the offence by the accused. Presumption is otherwise. No person is presumed to be guilty of an offence unless convicted by a competent court after trial. It is also our common experience that trial of a criminal case consumes much time and ultimately the accused may be acquitted therein. Refusal of appointment on the ground of pendency of a criminal case would, therefore, result in miscarriage of justice to the candidate because even on his 9 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) ultimate acquittal he cannot enter into service. The petitioner has not been denied appointment on the ground that his character is such which makes him unsuitable for the service. Neither it is the case of the respondents nor there is any adverse report against the petitioner of this nature after verification of his antecedents. Hence, I am of definite view that the petitioner has been wrongly denied appointment merely on the ground of pendency of two criminal cases, out of which in one he has been acquitted. This action violates Articles 14, 15 and 16 of the Constitution.
(v) Guru Dutt Ranga vs. GNCTD & Anr. - 2006 (92)SLJ163(CAT) wherein the Court held that 'A cumulative reading of the above clearly indicates that unless a person is convicted of an offence, merely because a case has been pending against him cannot be an impediment for his appointment'.
The Court further held that 'To adjudge character and antecedents of a person though there may be others who are not involved in criminal case, yet involvement in criminal case merely on the basis of an FIR is a pre- determination of conviction of a person, the authorities par take the role of a judicial body to give a verdict of guilt when the trial has not been completed. As such, surmise and arbitrariness and pre-determination of the issue speak volumes of the administrative authority who shall in all situations act fairly being a model employer.
'Mere involvement in a criminal case when the trial is on is not a mirror to reflect the unsatisfactory character of a person. In this era when our country has developed multifold in population it is hard to find Government jobs. One who by dint of hard work qualifies the competitive examination with a village background where there is a customary and recurrent property disputes feuds etc. where the entire family is named as accused, this involvement which is yet to be observed as false or otherwise is taken to be a touchstone of holding the character as unsatisfactory to deprive the person of his hard earned employment'.
'Irrational and arbitrary decision of the respondents is apparent on the face of it in the order of termination which casts a stigma against applicant on a presumption that the involvement would culminate into an imprisonment as an astrological conclusion arrived at by the respondents to hold that verification of the character and if convicted 10 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) imprisonment would range from 2 to 7 years, is such a conclusion, which even a common reasonable prudent man would not have arrived at and does not pass the test of reasonableness'.
(vi) Anshu Kumar vs. State & Others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5034/2008 - wherein the court observed that 'Merely on the count that the petitioner is facing a trial for the offences under Sections 498-a and 406 IPC, it cannot be said that he was not qualified to be appointed as Lecturer School Education'.
(vii) Rajesh Kumar vs. State (Education Department) Ors.
- SB Civil Writ Petition No. 15215/2011 - 'The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan stated that 'Mere pendency of criminal case is not a bar to allow joining after appointment. Pendency of criminal case cannot be said to be adverse for joining of the post'.
(viii) Deepak Kumar Mahal vs. UOI (CISF) and Ors. - S.B Civil Writ Petition No. 475/2012 - wherein the court observed that 'mere registration or pendency of criminal case cannot mean that a person is not bearing good moral character'.
'.....denying appointment or keeping it in abeyance due to pendency of criminal case alone is not justified. If the order of appointment is kept in abeyance during life time of the trial and if trial is concluded after ten years acquitting the petitioner, then whether the respondents would be in position to justify their action to deny appointment to the petitioner. The respondents should act as a model employer because even Government of India has evolved theory of reform and thereby, even a convict is not debarred for selection or appointment'.
(ix) Ravi Kant Sharma vs. M/o. Defence - OA No. 24/2014
- The Tribunal held that 'As far as the grounds raised by the applicant that the applicant was declined his selection/ appointment without giving any show cause notice nor provided any opportunity of hearing and that the impugned letter dated 21.12.2013 is without any application of mind; merely assigning a reason that criminal case is pending against the applicant where neither the terms and conditions of advertisement nor any statutory rules in MES which debars the applicant from seeking appointment as Mate (SK); according to condition no. 13 of the application form, he has neither concealed material facts nor 11 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) suppressed any information, are concerned, all are sustainable since the action of the respondents cannot be said to be just and proper............... 'Thus, we find all the grounds raised by the applicant as sustainable since mere pendency of criminal case does not amount to rejection of the candidature of a candidate'.
(x) The Commissioner, Karnataka Housing Board s. C. Muddaiah, Appeal (Civil) No. 4108/2007 - The Hon'ble Apex Court opined that '.......Take a case, where ex facie injustice has been meted out to an employee. In spite of the fact that he is entitled to certain benefits, they had not been given to him. His representations have been illegally and unjustifiably turned down. He finally approaches a Court of Law. The Court is convinced that gross injustice has been done to him and he was wrongfully, unfairly and with oblique motive deprived of those benefits. The Court, in the circumstances, directs the Authority to extend all benefits which he would have obtained had he not been illegally deprived of them. Is it open to the Authorities in such case to urge that as he has not worked (but held to be illegally deprived), he would not be granted the benefits? Upholding of such plea would amount to allowing a party to take undue advantage of his own wrong. It would perpetrate injustice rather than doing justice to the person wronged. We are conscious and mindful that even in absence of statutory provision, normal rule is 'no work no pay'. In appropriate cases, however, a Court of Law may, nay must, take into account all the facts in their entirety and pass an appropriate order in consonance with law. The Court, a given case, may hold that the person was willing to in work but was illegally and unlawfully not allowed to do so. The Court may in the circumstances, direct the Authority to grant him all benefits considering as if he had worked'.
(xi) Gowramma C (Dead) By LRS vs. Manager (Personnel) Hindustan Aeronautical Ltd. & Anr. - Civil Appeal Nos. 1575-1576 of 2022 - The Hon'ble Apex Court held that 'It would amount to grave injustice to an employee or workman if he is denied back wages simply because there is long lapse of time between the termination of his service and finality given to the order of reinstatement. The courts should bear in mind that in most of these cases, the employer is in an advantageous position vis-à-vis the employee or workman. He can avail the services of best legal brain for prolonging the agony of the sufferer i.e. the employee or workman, who can ill-afford the luxury of spending money on a lawyer with certain amount of fame'.
It further held that 'The most important question is whether the employee is at fault in any manner. If the 12 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) employee is not at all at fault and she was kept out of work by reasons of the decision taken by the employer, then to deny the fruits of her being vindicated at the end of the day would be unfair to the employee'.
(xi) UOI Etc vs. K. V. Jankiraman Etc, 1991 AIR 2010 - Wherein it has been held that 'The normal rule of "no work no pay" is not applicable to cases such as the present one where the employee although he is willing to work is kept away from work by the authorities for no fault of his. This in not a case where the employee remains away from work for his own reasons, although the work is offered to him'.
5. However, the above arguments of the counsel of the applicant was opposed by the counsel of the respondents who argued that the OA is barred by limitation as the same had been filed after about 3 years 6 months and 16 days of the passing of the impugned order, vide which the applicant's representation has been rejected.
He further stated that a criminal case No. 146/2/12 bearing FIR No.0127/2011 dated 19.04.2011 under Sections 34, 323 and 341 IPC was registered at Police Station Alipur, Delhi-10036 against the applicant and pending in the Trial Court, Rohini, New Delhi. Keeping the above fact in view and considering the sensitivity of the job requirement in CBI, his appointment for the post of Sub Inspector in CBI was not approved by the competent authority. Therefore, his candidature was cancelled and his dossier was returned to the concerned SSC Region for taking further necessary action as deemed fit. He averred that as per CBI Administrative Manual 'The appointing authority should satisfy itself that the character & 13 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) antecedents of the person proposed to be appointed are such that they do not render him/her unsuitable for appointment to government service'.
He also relied on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Kumar vs. State of U.P, KVS vs. Ram Ratan Yadav, GNCT Delhi vs. Dharam Veer Singh as well as judgment in State of MP and others vs. Bhupendra Yadav - 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1181 -
wherein vide para 25 it has been held as under :-
"We are, therefore, of the opinion that mere acquittal of the respondent in the criminal case would not automatically entitle him to being declared fit for appointment to the subject post. The appellant- State Government has judiciously exercised its discretion after taking note of all the relevant factors relating to the antecedents of the respondent. In such a case, even one criminal case faced by the respondent in which he was ultimately acquitted, apparently on the basis of being extended benefit of doubt, can make him unsuitable for appointment to the post of a Constable. The said decision taken by the appellant-State Government is not tainted by any malafides or arbitrariness for the High Court to have interfered therewith. As a result, the judgment dated 17th November, 2017, passed by the learned Single Judge is upheld while quashing and setting aside the impugned judgment dated 24th January, 2018, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court. The appeal is allowed. Parties are left to bear their own costs."
6. Heard both sides; examined the documents on record and perused the relevant judgments of the Coordinate Bench of CAT ;
Hon'ble High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court.
7. We have observed that in the instant OA there has been a gross violation of the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation. The 14 OA No.474/2019 Item 13 (C-4) applicant in good faith resigned from the post of Inspector (Excise) in CBEC and was all set to join as Sub Inspector in CBI when he was administered the sudden and rude shock of denial of appointment. It is also a violation of principles of natural justice as there was no fair hearing done to him before issuing the impugned order. Also the FIR that was lodged was for a trivial offence and not any serious or heinous offence like dacoity, rape, murder or moral turpitude.
8. Given the judgment by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh vs. UOI (2016), paras 26, 27 and 29 of which are reproduced below :-
"26. No doubt about it that verification of character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to assess suitability and it is open to employer to adjudge antecedents of the incumbent, but ultimate action should be based upon objective criteria on due consideration of all relevant aspects.
27. Suppression of 'material' information presupposes that what is suppressed that 'matters' not every technical or trivial matter. The employer has to act on due consideration of rules/instructions if any in exercise of powers in order to cancel candidature or for terminating the services of employee. Though a person who has suppressed the material information cannot claim unfettered right for appointment or continuity in service but he has a right not to be dealt with arbitrarily and exercise of power has to be in reasonable manner with objectivity having due regard to facts of cases.
29. The McCarthyism' is antithesis to constitutional goal, chance of reformation has to be afforded to young offenders in suitable cases, interplay of reformative theory cannot be ruled out in toto nor can be generally applied but is one of the factors to be taken into consideration while exercising the power for UDGME cancelling candidature or discharging an employee from service."15 OA No.474/2019
Item 13 (C-4) Such matters of checking character and antecedents of applicant in government appointments have already been settled in Administrative jurisprudence. In the instant OA, we have observed that there has been no concealment or suppression of facts by the applicant and now he has also been acquitted by the Court.
9. In the light of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the balance of convenience in the instant OA clearly lies with the applicant. The instant OA has merit, deserves to be allowed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned orders dated 14.03.2016 and 02.06.2016 are quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the candidature of the applicant and if otherwise found fit consider him for appointment to the post of Sub Inspector in CBI within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. There will be notional benefits like fixation of pay and allowances and seniority. However, there will be no payment of arrears of pay on the principle of 'No work no pay'.
There will be no order as to costs.
(Dr. Sumeet Jerath) (Harvinder Kaur Oberoi)
Member (A) Member (J)
/Mbt/