Punjab-Haryana High Court
Union Of India And Others vs Amar Singh on 4 November, 2008
Author: Rajive Bhalla
Bench: Rajive Bhalla
RSA No.3891 of 2004 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
RSA No.3891 of 2004
Date of Decision: 4.11.2008
Union of India and others .....Appellants
Vs.
Amar Singh ....Respondent
....
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA
****
Present : Mr. C.M. Sharma, Addl.Central Govt.Standing counsel
for U.O.I.
Mr.N.S. Shekhawat, Advocate for the respondent.
....
RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral)
The Union of India challenges judgements and decrees dated 22.10.2002 and 28.2.2004, passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Narnaul and the Additional District Judge, Narnual, decreeing the suit filed by the respondent and dismissing their appeal.
The plaintiff-respondent, Amar Singh was enrolled as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (hereinafter referred to as 'the C.R.P.F.) on 28.2.1968. It came to the notice of the authorities that, at the time of his enrolment, he had submitted a false school leaving certificate. A letter was, therefore, addressed to the Head Master of Govt. High School, Bawania, seeking information with respect to the certificate. The Head Master Govt. High School, Bawania vide letters No.217/94 dated 28.1.1995, 260/94 dated 21.3.1995, E-2/96-572 dated 6.7.1996 and E-2 Spl RSA No.3891 of 2004 2 dated 5.3.1997 confirmed the suspicion that the school leaving certificate, submitted by the respondent, was a fake document procured for the purpose of obtaining employment. As a result, in a departmental enquiry that followed, the respondent was found guilty of submitting a false certificate at the time of his recruitment. He was, therefore, removed from service vide order dated 30.9.1997.
The respondent challenged his removal from service by way of a civil suit, alleging violation of principles of natural justice and in addition prayed that he is entitled to receive pension, as he has put in more than 29 years of service. The appellants opposed the prayers in the suit and with respect to the prayer for pension, averred that as the respondent stood dismissed from government service, his past service and his right to receive pension stood forfeited under Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules, 1972, (hereinafter referred to as `Pension Rules'). On the basis of the pleadings, the learned trial Court framed the following issues :-
"1.Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for ? OPP."
2. "Whether the suit of plaintiff is not maintainable ? OPD"
3. "Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the suit ? OPD.
4. "Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the suit ?"
OPD.
5. "Whether the civil Court has no jurisdiction to try the present suit ? OPD."
6. Relief."
After considering the pleadings, the evidence adduced and the RSA No.3891 of 2004 3 arguments addressed, the trial Court partly decreed the suit by holding that as the respondent has completed more than 29 years of service, he is entitled to receive pension and Rule 24 of the Pension Rules does not apply to service personnel appointed under the Central Reserve Police Force Act. 1949 (hereinafter referred to as `the CRPF Act').
Aggrieved by the said judgement, the appellants filed an appeal. The first appellate Court, affirmed the findings returned by the trial Court and dismissed the appeal.
Counsel for the appellants submits that the appellant has been dismissed from service. While decreeing the suit, the Courts below have ignored the Rule 42 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as `the CRPF Rules), which prescribes that pensions and gratuities, for service in the force, would be regulated by the provisions of Chapters XV to XXI and XLVII and XLVIII of the Civil Service Regulations and the new Pension Rules promulgated by the Government of India. It is, therefore, submitted that as Pension Rules apply to the present case, the respondent's past service and his right to receive pension stands forfeited under Rule 24 of the Pension Rules. It is further submitted that the controversy in the instant case is squarely covered by a judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Saran V. IG of Police, CRPF and others, (2006) 2 SCC 541.
Counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, submits that though Rule 42 of the CRPF Rules refers to grant of pensions and gratuities in terms of the Civil Service Regulations and the Pension Rules, the question that arises for adjudication is whether the C.R.P.F. Act or the Rules framed thereunder provide for forfeiture of past service, pursuant to RSA No.3891 of 2004 4 dismissal/termination. It is submitted that there is no provision in the C.R.P.F. Act or Rules that prescribe for forfeiture of past service, consequent to termination. The judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below, therefore, do not require interference.
The following questions of law arise for consideration :-
(i)"Whether "Pension Rules" apply to service under the C.R.P.F. Act and Rules ?" ;
(ii)"Whether in view of Rule 24 of the Pension Rules, the respondent is entitled to receive pension ?"
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgements.
Rule 42 of the CRPF Rules reads as under :-
"42. Pension - (a) Pensions and gratuities for service in the Force shall be regulated according to the provisions contained in Chapters XV to XXI and XLVII and XLVIII of the Civil Service Regulation as may be amended from time to time and the new Pension Rules promulgated in the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance Memorandum No.F.3(1)E(Spl)/47, dated the 17th April 1950, as may be amended from time to time.
(b)Pensions and gratuities to enrolled followers for service in the Force shall be governed by provisions contained in the Central (Class IV) Services (Gratuity, Pension and Retirement) Rules, 1936 and the New RSA No.3891 of 2004 5 Pension Rules published in the government of India in the Ministry of Finance Memorandum No.F3(1)E (Spl)/ 47, dated the 17th April, 1950, as may be amended from time to time."
Rule 42 of the CRPF Rules, states, in unambiguous, terms that Pension Rules would apply to pensions payable under the C.R.P.F. Act. Counsel for the respondent is unable to raise any argument to the contrary. It would, therefore, have to be held that the trial Court, as also the first appellate Court fell into an error in holding that the Pension Rules do not apply to pensions payable for service under the C.R.P.F. Act and Rules. The first question of law is, therefore, answered accordingly.
Once it is held that pensions payable for service under the C.R.P.F. Act are governed by the Pension Rules, it would necessarily follow that eligibility to receive pension would be determined by reference to the Pension Rules, except where provided or barred by the C.R.P.F. Rules. Rule 24 of the Pension Rules provides for forfeiture of past service on dismissal or removal and reads as follows :-
"24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal - Dismissal or removal of a government servant from a service or post entails, forfeiture of his past service."
Forfeiture of past service leads to forfeiture of the right to receive pension. The respondent was dismissed from service for producing a false matriculation certificate. Therefore, by operation of Rule 24, his past service stands forfeited and as a consequence,he has no right to receive pension. A submission by counsel for the respondent that Rule 42 RSA No.3891 of 2004 6 of the CRPF Rules governs the extent of pension and not the entitlement thereto or the forfeiture thereof, cannot be accepted. The language of Rule 42 of the CRPF Rules admits to no ambiguity as to the applicability of Pension Rules and, therefore, pensions payable for service rendered under the C.R.P.F. Act would be governed by the Pension Rules. As a result, it would have to be held that the Courts below committed an error in holding that the respondent is entitled to receive pension.
A last submission pressed into service by counsel for the respondent is that as the respondent had put in more than 29 years of service, a lenient view should be taken. The respondent joined service by perpetuating a fraud. A person, who secures employment by fraud deserves no leniency or sympathy. In this regard reference would necessarily have to be made to the judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as Ram Saran V. I.G. Police (supra), wherein while considering a similar prayer, it was held as follows :-
"6. In response, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that in a disciplined force there was no scope for taking lenient view for a person who obtained employment on the basis of forged document. It was pointed out that on the basis of binding instructions contained in the government of India, Department of Personnel and Training, OM No.11012/7/91 Estt.(A) dated 19.5.1993 (G.O. No.29 of 1993) dismissal from service was the only punishment imposable. In fact, the DIG, CRPF had referred to the said instructions while RSA No.3891 of 2004 7 differing from the punishment proposed. Rule 24 of the CCS (Pension) Rules reads as follows :-
"24. Forfeiture of service on dismissal or removal - Dismissal or removal of a government servant from a service or post entails, forfeiture of his past service."
7. Therefore, in case of removal from service, the entitlement of pension is statutorily taken away. The only other plea advanced by learned counsel for the appellant seems the completion of 27 years of service. It was pointed out that the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged infraction."
In view of what has been held herein before, the appeal is allowed, the judgements and decrees passed by the Courts below granting pension to the appellant are set aside and the suit filed by the respondent is dismissed in its entirety with no order as to costs.
4.11.2008 (RAJIVE BHALLA) GS JUDGE