Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Rajiv Kumar vs Delhi Transport Corporation, Govt. Of ... on 7 September, 2015
1 OA-998/2014
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
OA No.998/2014
This the 7th day of September, 2015
Hon'ble Shri A.K. Bhardwaj, Member (J)
Hon'ble Shri K.N. Shrivastava, Member (A)
Rajiv Kumar S/o Sh.Om Prakash,
R/o Vill. & Post Office Jhamori
Distt. Jhajjar (Har.) ... Applicant
(By Advocate:None)
Versus
1. Delhi Transport Corporation,
Through its Chairman,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi
2. Manager (Personnel),
Delhi Transport Corporation,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
I.P. Estate, New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat)
ORDER(ORAL)
By Hon'ble Shri A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) The prayer made in the present OA, filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 read thus:-
2 OA-998/2014 "(i) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order of quashing the impugned order dated 28.10.2013.
(ii) That the Hon'ble Tribunal may graciously be pleased to pass an order declaring to the effect that the whole action of the respondents not issuing the appointment order to the applicant to the post of Driver in DTC as per offer of appointment order dated 17.02.2011 is illegal, arbitrary and discriminatory and consequently, pass an order directing the respondents to consider and to issue an appropriate appointment order to the applicant to the post of Driver in DTC with all consequential benefits from the date of appointment of junior and similarly situated persons.
(iii) Any other relief which the Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper may also be granted to the applicants along with the costs of litigation."
2. Respondents filed their counter reply on 16.09.2014 and thereafter, the applicant was given as many as 5 opportunities to file his rejoinder. Finally, on 23.2.2015 when the applicant did not avail of the opportunity, the court of Pr.Registrar directed to list the case before the Bench. Again, on 18.3.2015 the parties made request for adjournment. On 6.5.2015 the parties were not represented. Today again there is no appearance on behalf of the applicant. Thus, this OA is taken up for disposal in 3 OA-998/2014 terms of Rule 15 (1) of CAT Procedure rules. Vide letter dt. 10.9.2009 requisition was sent to by the DTC to DSSSB for making recruitment to fill up 5000 posts of drivers in the DTC. In the wake, an advertisement was published by DSSSB in November, 2009 inviting applications from the eligible candidate. The applicant also offered his candidature and the Board finally selected 2304 candidates and sent their dossiers to the Corporation. The Board also forwarded a copy of the office order issued by its Dy. secretary (CC-I) to the Corporation, wherein it was laid down that the appointment of the candidates would subject to fulfilment of all conditions of eligibility as per recruitment rules and verification of their character and antecedents etc. While giving his undertaking in prescribed Form 17, the applicant could disclose that a criminal case registered vide FIR No.176/10 u/s 279 338 IPC was pending against him. Finally, the criminal case culminated with his conviction. According to the applicant, once he was let off under section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, his candidature should not be cancelled.
3. On the other hand learned for the respondents espoused that once the applicant was found guilty and stood convicted in the case of rash and negligence driving, his 4 OA-998/2014 candidature has been rightly cancelled. She relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Divisional Personnel Officer, Southern Railway and Anr. Vs. T.R.Challappan -AIR 1975 SC 2216 wherein it has been ruled that conviction of an accused found guilty, does not stand washed away merely, because that is the sine- qua-non to release him on probation and the order of releasing of probation is merely substitution of sentence to be imposed by the court. The relevant excerpts of the order read thus:
"These provisions would clearly show that an order of release on probation comes into existence only after the accused is found guilty and is convicted of the offence. Thus the conviction of the accused or the finding, of the Court that he is guilty cannot be washed out at all because that is the sine qua non for the order of release on probation of the offender. The order of release on probation is merely in substitution of the sentence to be imposed by the Court. This has been made permissible by the statute with a humanist point of view in order to reform youthful offenders and to prevent them from becoming hardened criminals. The provisions of s. 9(3) of the Act extracted above would clearly show that the control of the offender is retained by the criminal court and where it is satisfied that the conditions of the bond have been broken by the offender who has been released on probation, the Court can sentence the offender for the original offence. This clearly shows that the factum of guilt on the criminal charge is not swept away merely by passing the order releasing the offender on probation. Under ss. 3, 4 or 6 of the Act, the stigma continues and the finding of the misconduct resulting in conviction must be treated to be, a conclusive proof. In these circumstances, therefore we are unable to accept the argument of the respondents that the order of the
5 OA-998/2014 Magistrate releasing the offender on probation obliterates the stigma of conviction. "
4. Once admittedly, the applicant was convicted for committing an offence of rash and negligence driving, we find no infirmity on the action of the respondents in cancelling his candidature for the post of driver.
5. The OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(K.N. Shrivastava) (A.K. Bhardwaj) Member (A) Member (J) /rb/