Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Prathviraj Gurjar vs M/O Railways on 13 August, 2021
ae 1 OA No. 293/400/2019 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORIGINAL APPLICATION No. 291/400/2019 Order reserved on: 06.08.2021 Coram: HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, MEMBER (A) HON'BLE MRS. HINA P.SHAH, MEMBER (J) prathvira) Gurjar S/o Shri Prahlad Gurjar, aged about 35 years, Resident of Gram Manda Gurjar, Post Narauli pang, tehsil Sapotara, Distt. Karauli (Raj.) presently dismisse? from service while posted as Gang Man (Group-P) in the office of Asst. Divisional Engineer West central Railway, Gangapurcity. (M. 9829161669). .. Applicant (py Adv: Shri Vinod Goyal) Versus Union of India through General Manager, West Railway, Jabalpur, M.P. 482007. Central Railway Manager, West Central 2, The Divisional Railway, Kota. 324002. 3, The Senior Divisional Engineer (North), West Central Railway, Kota. 324002. ..Respondents (BY Adv: Shri M.K.Meena) ORDER Per: Mrs. Hina P. Shah, Member (J)
The present Original Application has been filed by the Applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 for the following reliefs: -
"(i) By an Appropriate order or direction, the impugned order dated 23.05.2019 (Annex.A/1), 31.05.2014 (Annex.A/2) in which reference of the order dated 25.04.2014 has been made and order dated 17.10.2014 (Annex.A/3) may kindly be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to reinstate the applicant in service with all consequential benefits including seniority and promotion.
Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may also be awarded to the applicant.
(ii)
(iii) That the costs of this application may be awarded."
2. The facts as stated by the Applicant is that the father of the Applicant was in service with the Respondents and under the LARSGESS scheme submitted an application for appointment of his son and so th gman on 20.12.2013 on provisional basis (Annexure-A/4). e Applicant was appointed on the post of Gan He had joined the said duty but was served with a show cause notice dated 16.04.2014 and was asked as to why his services should not be terminated on account of concealment of facts about his involvement in a criminal case. The Applicant replied to the said show cause on 20.04.2014 stating that he had no intention to conceal as after the filing of the chargesheet on a 56.08.2009, the Trial Court had decided the matter on the basis of the compromise between the parties, hence he did not feel it necessary to disclose the said fact. Thereafter he again represented stating that he was unable to understand the language and also that the form was filled by a third person as he was only 8" pass. But the Respondents without considering the gravity of the offence dismissed the Applicant from service vide order dated 31.05.2014. The Applicant challenged the said order by way of a Review and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure-A/3). The Applicant has relied on the Judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Avatar Singh Vs. Union of India (2016) 8 SCC 471 in support of his claim. As the action of the Respondents was unjustified and illegal in terminating his services, he is constrained to approach this Hon'ble Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
3. Respondents have filed their reply stating that admittedly, er the warning in the Attestation Form, Applicant failed even aft to disclose about the criminal case registered against him and as ot filled correct details in the form condition no. such has Nn 12(A)(B)(C) and has obtained employment by concealing material facts. Hence Respondents issued show cause notice to the Applicant dated 16.04.2014 pertaining to concealment of fact. It is further stated that against the Applicant an FIR No 177/2009 has been registered for offences u/s 143, 447, 341 323 of IPC at Police Station, Sapotra in which charge sheet came to be filed against the Applicant on 26.08.2009. The Applicant submitted his reply to the said show cause notice and after due consideration by the Respondents, impugned order was passed. It was further pointed out that the Applicant had failed to accept the order dated 25.04.2014, then the same was pasted on the residence of the Applicant in presence of two railway employees (Annexure-R/1). On the review filed by the Applicant, have passed the orders dated 17.10.2014. Respondents ondents further state that the character of the Applicant was Resp not found good as per Annexure-A/8 and Annexure-A/9. The ndents state that the Applicant has been acquitted in the Respo criminal case due to compromise but the said acquittal order shows the conduct and character of the Applicant. The important nt concealed the fact of his criminal case fact was that the Applica refore, his services were rightly terminated and there is and, the no illegality in the termination order passed by the Respondents.
4. Applicant has filed Rejoinder denying the contentions of the Respondents. He further stated that the case of the Applicant has been rejected by the Respondents on the ground that he has suppressed facts regarding criminal case but he inadvertently not mentioned about the criminal case. Pertaining to suppression of facts, Hon'ble Apex Court in number of cases has directed fo r 5 O4 No, 291/400/2019 reconsideration of matters. This Hon'ble Tribunal has vide its order dated 02.04.2019 had also directed the Respondents to revisit the impugned order in light of the observations and principles laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh V/s. UOI but from bare perusal of the order dated 23.05.2019 (Annexure-A/1), it shows that the principles laid down in Avtar Singh's case have not been considered and examined but again on the same facts, the representation has been rejected, which was not the intention of the Hon'ble Tribunal while deciding the earlier case of the Applicant. As the Applicant was only appointed as Gangman which is a Group-D post, therefore, th reinstatement as there was no charge of moral turpitude. e criminal case will have no effect upon the Therefore, as the representation of the Applicant has been rejected without application of mind in a vague manner, therefore, in light of judgement of Avtar Singh his case deserves to be considered for appointment.
5. Heard the parties through video conference and perused the material available on record including the judgements cited by the parties.
6. The learned Counsel for the Applicant as well as the Respondents reiterated their submissions made earlier
7. After hearing both the parties and after going through th e pleadings, the question which requires consideration is wheth er OA No, 291/400/2015 in light of the law laid down by Apex Court in Avtar Singh th e case of the Applicant has been considered by the Respondents j n passing the impugned order and have followed the directions given in earlier Original Application.
8. As seen from the facts, the father of the Applicant was g in Railways and under LARSGESS Scheme had submitted workin an application for appointment of his son and Applicant being eligible was appointed for the post of Gangman and after pletion of formalities was offered appointment subject to com uding character verification. Before giving offer of conditions incl appointment, the Applicant was required to fill the Attestation Form disclosing all t ning, Applicant did not disclose about the criminal cases he information as required and in spite of the said war a case of suppression of material fact It was against him.
| turpitude. On investigation, the Respondents involving mora hat Applicant was implicated in the ame aware of the fact t bec stered against him in criminal case No. 177/09 criminal case regi d 03.08.2009 u/s 143, 447, 341 & 323 of IPC in Police date Station Sapotara, District Karauli. Thus according to Respondents, non-disclosure of criminal case while filling the Attestation Form amounts to suppression of information and held guilty for the same. He was accordingly issued a sho WwW Applicant cause notice dated 16.04.2014 asking for explanation as to wh Oo why his appointment should not be cancelled. The req e .
d. Thereafter again Appli t the same was rejected vide order were termi erminate cant made a Review Petition to the Railways bu ected his request. Again n'ble Tribunal by filing Original dated 17 j 10.2014 re) st the said order proached this Ho Applicant aP /2014 which was disposed of vide order No. 629 019 with a directio 14 and to pass a reasoned speaking order Application n to Respondents to revisit the dated 02.04.2 r dated 17.10.20 orde in the light of Avtar Singh's case by affording opportunity of hearing to the Applicant. after serving the said order, Applicant personal hearing on 08.05.2019 and Respondent S was called for he claim of the Applicant vide letter dated thereafter rejected ¢ 23.05.2019 en acd uitted cannexure-A/1). It is also seen that Applicant h as in criminal charges only on the _ basi is of be compromise.
ing through Annexure-A/1 which is the impu gned we have to see whether the directions of of this orde arlier Original Application have bee n ipunal passed in € Hon y the Respondents in its true spiri it and while y considered b he order date pex Court judgement of Av tar Singh as di S directed.
dul passing ¢ through the A to g the order in challenge, it is see n that the d 23.05.2019 whether they have gone comin
10. pondents have revisited para 24 of Avtar Si ingh case of Res pana zo1/aoorania Hon' as on'ble Apex Court and studied its observation and conclusion. It ite of specific warning mentioned in the is clear that in SP giving clear information, Applicant had in para Attestation Form rm not disclosed details of criminal 12 of the said Attestation Fo t him. This fact Ww n 08.05.2019. As per para 24 as accepted by the Case registered agains Applicant In his personal hearing 0 of the said judgement, which reads as under:
"No doubt about it that once verification form requires certain information to be furnished, declarant is duty ish it correctly and any suppression of material r submitting false information, may by ination of its services Or cancellation nts have also gone through the n the Responde As see decision the said judgement at para 30 (3) which reads as under:
"The employ shall take into consideration the t rders/instructions/rules applicable to the governmen at the time of taking the decision".
the Respondents have taken into position and assignment of work responsibility and as the Department requires involves discipline and honesty from its employees but wh en ne applicant has criminal background and he has concealed th e e the Department did not consider him fit fo rc <a QA No. 291/400/2019
11. We I are not in agreement with the judgements relied b | y the Applicant as eac case d C p ds on its o | h epen wn facts and circumstances and after going the findings arrived by the u y Respondents, we have observed that the Respondents ha | ve gone in detail as regards the judgement of Avtar Singh ( ) supra especially para 24 as well as para 30 and thereafter ob served that in spite of clear instructions and warning given in Attestat estation Form to fill correct se the same, therefore, considered Applicant as 'Unfit' details and in spite of this, the Applicant failed to disclo for the Railway Services. Thus as Railways have not violated an y provisions of law nor any rules, the impugned order in challenge dated 23.05.2019 (Annexure-A/1) along with orders dated 14.05.2014 (Annex A/3) cannot be interfered with as the same are just 3 ure A/2), and order dated 17.10.2014 (annexure and legal.
as the Original Application is
42. In view of observations made, devoid of any merits, same is dismissed with no order as to costs.
aina P. shah) (Dinesh Sharina) rember gd) Member (A) iVy~ 4 }