Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ramkrishna Vishwakarma vs M/O Railways on 4 December, 2024
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR.
This Wednesday, the 4th day of December 2024
Hon'ble Ms Mallika Arya, Member (A)
Original Application No. 1210 of 2018
Ramkrishna Vishwakarma, S/o Shri Pooran Lal Vishwakarma,
Aged about 32 years, R/o Pooranpura Lal Dhau, Ward No.30
Railway Colony, Vidisha District Vidisha (M.P.)
.......Applicant
By Adv: Ms. Nisha Nema
VERSUS
1. Union of India, Through General Manager West Central
Railway, Indira Market, Near Railway Station Jabalpur Distt.
Jabalpur (M.P.) - 482001
2. Divisional Railway Manager, West Central Railway,
Habeebganj Bhopal District Bhopal (M.P.)-461111
3. Senior DPO (Personnel) West Central Railway, Habeebganj
Bhopal District Bhopal (M.P.)-461111
-Respondents
By Adv: Shri N K Mishra
1
Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL,
OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001,
VISHAL
L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI
CHOWK, Phone=
7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b
d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER=
8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0
KUSHWAH
20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected],
CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH
Reason: I am the author of this document
Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
ORDER
This Original Application has been filed by the applicant against the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 (Annexure A/1) whereby the application for appointment on the compassionate grounds has been rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case as projected in the original application are that as per the scheme of the Railway Board mentioned in IRMM-2000 para- 522 (2)(iv) and 522(2)(i), the father of the applicant was categorized by medical Board as unfit to serve under the respondent Board. The father of the petitioner was serving as P/man in the Railways. In view of the above an application for compassionate appointment was made by the applicant. A copy of application dated 19.03.2018 is filed herewith as Annexure A/4. In response to the application for compassionate appointment and on being successful in the screening/written Test a letter dated 09.04.2018 (Annexure A/5) was issued to produce the relevant documents. After completion of the requisite formalities, the respondents passed the impugned order dated 20.09.2018 and rejected the application only on the grounds that the applicant was charged in a criminal case under section 302 of I.P.C. and 3(2) (v) of Prevention of Atrocities SC/ST Act, and applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court on the ground of suspicion. It is necessary to point out here that the applicant was falsely implicated in a criminal case. The Trial commenced and Learned Trial Court acquitted the applicant after going through the evidence and material on record vide it's order dated 18.03.2009 (Annexure A/6). It is submitted here that the acquittal in criminal case is solely based on the principle that the prosecution failed to prove case 2 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, VISHAL L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0 KUSHWAH 20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 beyond all reasonable doubt. The employer has no right to interpret the judicial order which is based on the full-fledged scrutiny of facts after evidence. The applicant has placed reliance on judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Joginder Singh versus Union Territory of Chandigarh & Ors, Civil Appeal no. 2325 of 2009, wherein it has been held as under:
"The expressions "honourable acquittal", acquitted of blame", "fully exonerated" are (2013) 1 SCC 598 unknown to the Code of Criminal Procedure or the Penal Code, which are coined by judicial pronouncements. It is difficult to define precisely what is meant by the expression "honourably acquitted". When the accused is acquitted after full consideration of prosecution evidence and that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove the charges levelled against the accused, it can possibly be said that the accused was honourably acquitted."
3. The respondents have filed their reply wherein it has been submitted that the applicant was prosecuted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and section 3(2) (V) of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, vide Special Criminal Case No. 41/2007 before the Court of Additional District Judge, Special Judge SC/ST (P.A.)Act, Vidisha, (Madhya Pradesh). Thus, the applicant was prosecuted for offences, of grievous in nature and acquitted with benefit of doubt on 18.03.2009 (Annexure A-6) As per rule 101 of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Volume I (Revised Edition 1989) "The appointing authority should satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of the person to be appointed are such as do not render him unsuitable for appointment to Government service in 3 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, VISHAL L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0 KUSHWAH 20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 accordance with the instructions issued by the Railway Board to Railway Administrations from time to time. The copy of Indian Railway Establishment Manual Vol-1 is filed herewith as Annexure R-1. On the basis of above mentioned (Annexure R-1) provisions, the applicant was not found suitable for appointment for Railway Services for the post of Helper in Group 'D' Railway Services by the Competent Authority(Annexure A-1). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in the case of Avtar Singh V/S Union of India and others, SLP (C) No.20525/2011, decided on 21.07.2016 that "in a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate."
After considering all aspects of the case, the appointing authority has found that it is not desirable to appoint the applicant on the post of Helper in Group 'D' Railway Services on account of his antecedent Criminal record as mentioned in attestation form of applicant. The copy of the attestation form of the applicant is filed herewith as Annexure R-2. In view of above submission, the appointing authority found the applicant ineligible for appointment on the post of Helper in Group D' Railway Services vide letter No. WCR/P-BPL/122/Wel/CA/82/17-18, dated 20.09.2018. Therefore, the original application filed by the applicant is without merits and has no substance and deserves to be dismissed with exemplary costs.
4. I have considered the matter and perused the pleadings and documents annexed herewith.
4 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAHDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, VISHAL L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0 KUSHWAH 20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
5. The counsel for the applicant has submitted that the case of the applicant has been rejected on the ground that applicant was acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt by the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant further submits that he was falsely implicated in the case as a co-accused.
6. The counsel for the respondents on the other hand have pleaded that they are well within their rights to examine the character and antecedents of the applicant before appointing him in the organization. The respondents have drawn attention to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India in Special Leave Petition (C) No. 20525/2011 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court in its Para 38.5 has held as under:
"38.5 In a case where the employee has made declaration truthfully of a concluded criminal case, the employer still has the right to consider antecedents, and cannot be compelled to appoint the candidate."
7. In the letter of rejection (Annexure A/1) issued by the respondents to the applicant, it has been stated that the applicant has been acquitted of the charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. Therefore, the case for compassionate appointment cannot be considered. I am of the view that the fact remains that the applicant has been acquitted by the Trial Court and there is no denial of the same. There is absolutely no doubt that this fact was also not suppressed from the respondents and the applicant had declared this truthfully in his attestation form. In my view, there was no need for the respondents to look into the facts of acquittal whether it was on the basis of merit or on the grounds of benefit of doubt.
5 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAHDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, VISHAL L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0 KUSHWAH 20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0
8. I have perused Railway Estt. Manual Vol. I regarding verification of character and antecedents for appointment and as per its Rule 101 "The appointing authority should satisfy itself that the character and antecedents of the person 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." (Annexure R/1).
9. There is no doubt that it is the prerogative of the respondents to offer appointment to the applicant after satisfying themselves about character and antecedents of a person. From the letter of rejection (Annexure A/1) it appears that the ground on which candidature of the applicant has been rejected is that the acquittal took place on the basis of benefit of doubt. It appears that the respondent authorities have not done any independent assessment regarding character and antecedents of the applicant and have merely gone on the surmise that he was involved in a criminal case.
10. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Joginder Singh vs Union Territory of Chandigarh in Civil Appeal No. 2325 of 2009, decided on 11.11.2014, wherein it has been held as under:
"We have carefully examined the material on the basis of which the respondents have come to the conclusion that the appellant is not suitable for appointment to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor in the Central Bureau of investigation and we are of the view that the respondents are not justified in reaching a conclusion adverse to the applicant. No reasonable person, on the basis of the material placed before us, can come to the conclusion that the 6 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAH DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, VISHAL L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0 KUSHWAH 20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0 appellant's antecedents and character are such that he is unfit to be appointed to the post of Senior Public Prosecutor. There has been total lack of application of mind on the part of 1993 Supp (3) SCC 49 the respondents....... We are of the view that the appellant has been unjustifiably denied his right to be appointed to the post to which he was selected and recommended by the Union Public Service Commission."
11. In light of the above observations, I am of the view that there is merit in the case of the applicant. The respondents are directed to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment within 90 days after receipt of a certified copy of this order. No order as to costs.
(Mallika Arya) Administrative Member VK/-
7 Digitally signed by VISHAL KUSHWAHDN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=COURT MASTER/STENO'C', PostalCode=482001, VISHAL L=Jabalpur, S=Madhya Pradesh, STREET=OM SHANTI CHOWK, Phone= 7c6535e7a21f88f8dc0b718c6812643d46355cb4b3a7486b d6ce7c669575555f, SERIALNUMBER= 8b197244829f65446df440324da4b80ca7c30232fa2e9cd0 KUSHWAH 20e87d4b355c7dc8, [email protected], CN=VISHAL KUSHWAH Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2024.12.05 17:39:05+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2024.3.0