Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Ravi Kant Sharma vs M/O Defence on 6 April, 2022
1
OA No. 24/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 24/2014
Order reserved on 31.03.2022
DATE OF ORDER: 06.04.2022
CORAM
HON'BLE MR. DINESH SHARMA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
HON'BLE MRS. HINA P. SHAH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ravi Kant Sharma son of Shri Ramnarayan Sharma,
aged about 22 year, resident of Village Ajmaripur,
Post Karoda, Tehsil Alwar (Raj.).
....Applicant
Shri M.S. Gurjar, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of
Defence (Army), Kashmir House, DHQ, New
Delhi-110011.
2. Superintending Engineer, Headquarters, Military
Engineering Service, Commander Works
Engineer, Sriganganagar (Raj.).
3. Garrison Engineer, Military Engineering Service,
Lalgarh Jattan, Mil Station, District
Sriganganagar (Raj.).
.... Respondents
Shri V.D. Sharma, counsel for respondents.
2
OA No. 24/2014
ORDER
Per: Hina P. Shah, Judicial Member The present Original Application has been filed by the applicant under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 for the following reliefs:-
"In view of the above facts and grounds mentioned in the body of the application, it is humbly prayed that looking to the overall facts and circumstances of this case, this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow this O.A., call for the entire record, examining the same and impugned order cum letter dated 21.12.2013 (A-1) may kindly be declared null and void and further be quashed and set aside and respondents be directed to allow the applicant to resume the appointment of mate (SSK) in military engineering services in terms of appointment order dated 22.11.2013 and other consequential benefits may also be awarded in favour of the applicant.
Any other order which this Hon'ble Court considers fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be issued in favour of the applicant."
2. The brief facts of the case, as stated by the applicant, are that he has passed Matriculation Examination in the year 2005 and Senior Secondary Examination in the year 2007 from Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan. He is resident of Village Ajmaripur in Rajasthan. As per the advertisement issued by Headquarters Chief Engineer 3 OA No. 24/2014 South Western Command in December, 2011 for recruitment of various posts in Civil Works Department of Military Engineer Services, since the applicant fulfilled all requisite qualification and other eligibility conditions, he applied for the post of Mate in general category. After scrutiny, the selection authority issued admit card to the applicant for written test wherein the applicant participated and was declared qualified and eligible for appearing in interview. He appeared in the interview on 17.11.2012 and was selected on the post of Mate (SSK) in general category and in consequence thereof an offer of appointment dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure A/8) was issued to the applicant. During pendency of documentation, selection authority had issued a letter to the Sub Divisional Officer seeking character certificate of the applicant and it was found out by the respondents that an FIR No. 518/2011, dated 28.11.2011, under Section 147/149, 323, 424 and 458 of IPC was registered against the applicant and the said matter was pending before the trial court. On the basis of the said report, the respondents had declined the applicant to resume for duties on the post of Mate (SSK) in MES. As per the impugned order dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure A/1), it is clear that 4 OA No. 24/2014 candidature of the applicant was discarded by respondent no. 2 due to pendency of the criminal case. Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the applicant sent a notice for demand of justice dated 07.01.2014 through his counsel, but the respondents neither allowed the applicant to resume duties nor assigned any reason for not allowing him to join duties. Thus, being aggrieved by the impugned rejection letter dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure A/1), the applicant approached this Tribunal for redressal of his grievance.
3. After issue of notices, the respondents have filed their reply raising preliminary objection that jurisdiction of Sriganganagar lies under the C.A.T. Jodhpur Bench. On facts, the respondents stated that the offer of appointment given to the applicant was provisional in nature subject to fulfilment of terms and conditions as specified in the offer of appointment. The applicant had misconceived relevant fact about the criminal case and it was incumbent on the part of the applicant that he should have produced provisional character verification certificate. The applicant has not only concealed the relevant information prior to his appointment; rather he has filed the present O.A. 5 OA No. 24/2014 on misconceived facts and fabricated documents. It is further stated that the applicant has never sent any legal notice with regard to his grievance. It is also stated that though the applicant was selected on the basis of his qualification and passing written examination but he had not disclosed about the pending criminal case against him. Also it was made clear to the applicant that his appointment was subject to satisfactory verification of antecedents and in the present case as per the report of the District Magistrate, it is clear that the antecedents of the applicant were reported as unsatisfactory. Therefore, the order dated 21.12.2013 is just and proper. With regard to the submission of the applicant that before passing such order, no show cause notice was given to the applicant, it is stated that the applicant failed to provide the mandatory documents, which included the character verification certificate. In view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment dated 02.07.2013 passed in SLP (Civil) No. 38886/2012 (Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Anr. vs. Mehar Singh, with SLP (Civil) No. 4057/2013, wherein it was observed that a candidate wishing to join the police force must be a person of utmost rectitude. He must have impeachable character and integrity. A person having 6 OA No. 24/2014 criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged in the criminal case, that acquittal or discharge order will have to be examined to see whether he has been completely exonerated in case because even a possibility of his taking to life of crimes poses a threat to the discipline of the police force. Further, as held by the Hon'ble High Court at Delhi in its order dated 27.08.2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 6920 of 2002 that the persons involving the pending criminal cases are not to be given appointment, especially in disciplined forces. Thus, as in the present matter the character of the applicant can be seen from the facts that though he was involved in criminal matter, he failed to intimate about the same not only during the selection process but also before this Tribunal. Hence, the present Original Application deserves to be dismissed. In support of their contentions, the respondents have relied upon the following judgments:-
"(a). Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Bench's judgment in the case of Imtiyaj Ali vs. State of Rajasthan, (SB Civil Writ Petition No 14240/2021), decided on 03rd March, 2022.
(b). Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of State of Rajasthan & Ors. vs. Love Kush Meena, (Civil Appeal No. 3894 of 2020), decided on 24th March, 2021.7 OA No. 24/2014
(c). Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in the case of Commissioner of Police vs. Raj Kumar, (Civil Appeal No. 4960/2021), decided on 25th August 2021.
(d) Hon'ble Madras High Court's judgment in the case of Mr. Ganesan vs. State of Tamil Nadu & Ors. (WP Nos. 199 & 15755 of 2008) decided on 28.11.2008."
4. The applicant has also filed a rejoinder denying the contentions raised by the respondent. He further stated that as per the terms and conditions of the advertisement, there was no column in the advertisement with regard to disqualification in respect of pendency of a case against the candidate. Even the candidate has neither concealed material fact nor suppressed any facts in respect of eligibility of the selection post. As per condition Nos. 15, 19, 20 and 21 relating to disqualification for selection on the question post, the case of the applicant does not come in the purview of the aforesaid disqualification. The applicant further states that as per the Performa of application form, condition no. 13 seeks only to mention in respect of the applicant whether he has ever been convicted by any court for any offence, for which the applicant has rightly mentioned "no", since he was not convicted. Therefore, there was no reason for giving any details by the applicant. Thus, since the 8 OA No. 24/2014 applicant has neither concealed any material facts even while filing O.A. nor has he produced any fabricated documents, therefore, mere pendency of criminal case against the selectee, his appointment cannot be withheld and he should be offered an appointment with the condition of outcome of criminal case. Hence, the applicant states that since his case is genuine and he cannot be debarred from service, the present O.A. deserves to be allowed. In his support, the applicant has relied upon several judgments, some of them are as under: -
"(1) Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench's judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2012 WLC (Raj.) UC 568.
(2) Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench's judgment in the case of Ravi Kumar vs. the Director General of Police, Rajasthan, Jaipur & Anr., reported in 2017 (1) WLC (Raj.) UC 339.
5. We have heard learned counsels for the parties at length and considered the pleadings of the parties as well as the judgments relied upon by the parties.
6. The applicant as well as the respondents have reiterated their submissions as stated earlier. 9 OA No. 24/2014
7. The factual matrix of the case is that the Headquarters Chief Engineer South Western Command had issued an advertisement in December, 2011 for recruitment of various posts in Civil Works Department of Military Engineer Services. Since the applicant was possessing the requisite educational qualifications and he fulfilled all the eligibility criteria in respect of selection to the post of Mate (SSK), he applied for the said post. After screening of his application, the selection authority had issued an admit card for appearing in written test wherein he participated on 02.09.2012 and found successful and thereafter he also appeared in the interview. As he was selected by the authorities on the post of Mate (SSK) in general category in MES, he was given an offer of appointment dated 22nd November, 2013 (Annexure A/8). As per the said offer of appointment, he was required to report for duty to the office of Garrison Engineer, Lalgarh Jattan Mil Station on or before 21.12.2013. To his utter shock, the applicant received a letter dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure A/1) wherein it was informed to him that as per the provisional character verification certificate issued by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Behror (Alwar) on 10 OA No. 24/2014 20.12.2013, he is not liable to resume the appointment of Mate (SSK) in MES as per rules.
8. It is the case of the respondents that the applicant has himself not produced his provisional character verification certificate neither did he mention about the pending criminal case against him. Thus, on the basis of the provisional character verification certificate given by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Behror, (Alwar), the applicant was not liable to resume the appointment of Mate (SSK) in MES and, as such, he was not allowed to resume his duties. As far as the advertisement of December, 2011, whereby the applicant had applied for the said post, is seen, reasons for 'disqualification' of a candidate has been referred at Para nos. 19, 20 and 21, which read as under: -
"Disqualification
19. Individual who has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a living spouse; or
20. Individual who, having a spouse living, has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person, shall not be eligible for appointment to the service.
Note: Central Government may exempt any person from the operation of rules at Para quoted above, if satisfied that such marriage is permissible under the personal law applicable to 11 OA No. 24/2014 such person and other party to the marriage and that there are other grounds for so doing.
21. Individual who has furnished wrong information in the application form, false certificate to avail benefits / reservation, false/wrong information in the application form regarding relatives / close relatives working in MES, or who have wilfully suppressed any material information, shall be liable to cancellation of candidature at any stage of recruitment process and / or termination of service, if the candidate has been selected."
9. From the advertisement, it is very clear that the reasons for 'disqualification' of a candidate would be if he has entered into or contracted a marriage with a person having a living spouse or if he having a spouse living and has entered into or contracted a marriage with any person and when law does not permit for the same or if he has furnished wrong information in the application form, false certificate to avail benefits / reservation, false/wrong information in the application form regarding relatives / close relatives working in MES, or who have wilfully suppressed any material information and, in such a situation, the same shall be liable to cancellation of candidature at any stage of recruitment process and / or termination of service, if the candidate has been selected. But from the impugned order dated 21.12.2013, we find that the present applicant has been disqualified on the basis of 12 OA No. 24/2014 provisional character verification certificate issued on 20.12.2013 by Sub Divisional Magistrate, Behror (Alwar) that a case is pending against the applicant. From the provisional character verification certificate dated 20.12.2013 (Annexure A/9), it is seen that a case is pending against the applicant but there is no order produced by the respondents to show that the applicant has been convicted in the said offence. As far as the application form filled by the applicant is concerned, in column no. 13, there was a specific question; "Whether you have ever been convicted by any Court for any offence" and in reply to the said question, the applicant has answered "No". It is seen that the said column no. 13 of the application form did not require him to mention any details about any criminal case whether it is pending or the type of charges levelled against him. It only requires the candidate to answer 'as to whether he has ever been convicted by any Court for any offence'. Therefore, it is very clear that the applicant has neither wilfully suppressed any material information about the criminal case nor has he ever been convicted by any Court, thus, it cannot be said that the applicant has concealed material information from the respondents 13 OA No. 24/2014 during the selection process or during the filing of the present O.A.
10. 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 suppressed any information, are concerned, all are sustainable since the action of the respondents cannot be said to be just and proper. As far as the grounds raised by the applicant that the candidature of the applicant has been discarded by an incompetent authority is concerned, also finds reasons to believe since the same is not passed by the competent authority. 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. It is also 14 OA No. 24/2014 seen that the applicant has neither wilfully suppressed material fact nor information but the column no. 13 of the application form clearly mentions that the candidate shall submit as to whether he has ever been convicted by any Court for any offence and the applicant has clearly mentioned "no". The action of the respondents cannot be accepted for the simple reason that the said advertisement also failed to disclose the said reason for 'disqualification' of candidature of a candidate.
11. Coming to the judgments relied upon by the applicant, the Hon'ble High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra) has clearly observed 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. The Hon'ble High Court directed the respondents to allow joining of the petitioner on the post of Sr. Teacher (English). It was also directed that petitioner would be entitled to seniority from the date of appointment. However, respondents would be at liberty to take action if the outcome of the criminal case comes adverse to the petitioner. More or less the same view has been taken by the Hon'ble High 15 OA No. 24/2014 Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench in the case of Ravi Kumar (supra).
On the other hand, we do not agree with the judgments relied upon by the respondents in view of the facts and circumstances of the present case.
12. In view of the observations and discussions made herein-above, the impugned order dated 21.12.2013 (Annexure A/1) deserves to be quashed and set aside and, accordingly, the same is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to allow the applicant to resume/join on the post of Mate (SSK) in MES as per appointment order dated 22.11.2013 (Annexure A/8) with all consequential benefits. However, the respondents would be at liberty to take action if the outcome of the said criminal case comes adverse to the applicant. Accordingly, the Original Application is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. No order as to costs.
(HINA P. SHAH) (DINESH SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER /nlk/