Central Administrative Tribunal - Jaipur
Husain Son Of Late Mitthu Aged 31 Years vs Union Of India Through Secretary on 13 January, 2017
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR
ORIGINAL APPLICATION NO. 291/00132/2015
ORDER RESERVED ON 03.01.2017
DATE OF ORDER: 13.01.2017
CORAM
HONBLE MRS. JASMINE AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HONBLE MS. MEENAKSHI HOOJA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Husain son of Late Mitthu aged 31 years, resident of near Idgah, Somalpur Road, Ajmer Rajasthan (Terminated as Trainee Gr. IV, North Western Railway, Ajmer).
....Applicant
Mr. Amit Mathur, counsel for applicant.
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Railway, Government of India, Rail Bhawan, New Delhi.
2. Deputy Chief Material Manager, North Western Railway, Ajmer.
....Respondents
Mr. Anupam Agarwal, counsel for respondents.
ORDER
(Per MRS. JASMINE AHMED, JUDICIAL MEMBER) It is the contention of Shri Amit Mathur, learned counsel for the applicant that the applicant was appointed as Trainee Gr. IV in the respondents-department vide order dated 22nd November, 2014 bearing No. 122/2014 in the wake of his fathers death while in service. On the basis of appointment order, the applicant joined the services on 24th November, 2014. After his joining a show cause notice was served on 30th January, 2015 by respondent no. 2 alleging and asking from the applicant why his services shall not be terminated for suppression of material facts in the verification form. The applicant gave reply to show cause notice and after considering the show cause notice, the respondents passed impugned order dated 20th February, 2015, which resulted in this O.A.
2. The brief facts of the case are that on account of sudden demise of the father of the applicant, the applicant applied for appointment under compassionate grounds and because of that he had to fill up some forms in which in the attestation form the applicant, in column no. 11, has stated about his non-engagement in any criminal case or not having pending any criminal case against him. On the basis of his attestation form, he was appointed as Trainee Gr. IV vide order dated 22.11.2014 and he joined the services on 24.11.2014 but on verification it was found by the respondents that the applicant has concealed some material facts while filling up the attestation form. It is the allegation against the applicant that the applicant has not mentioned about the fact that a case No. 349/2009 for offence under Section 143, 283 IPC was pending at the time of his filling up the attestation form and taking into consideration that though there was a warning in the attestation form that the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government. Knowing fully well, the applicant intentionally has suppressed the information in the Attestation Form and for obvious reason, which is against the prescribed norms of Attestation form, hence, after giving a show cause notice and after considering his reply, the services of the applicant has been terminated by the respondents.
3. Learned counsel for the applicant in this regard drew our attention to page no. 19 and 20 of the paper book wherein he has shown that the allegation against the applicant was under Section 143, 283 IPC, which was decided by the learned Court and the learned Court has come to the decision which is quoted below: -
^^14-------------------- vkijkf/kd ijhfo{kk vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 12 ds rgr ;g vknsk fn;k tkrk gS fd bl nks"kfl)h ls vfHk;qDrx.k fdlh fugZjrk ls xzLr ugha gksxk A---------^^ While imposing the punishment, the learned Court has quoted as under -
^^n.M ds izu ij lquk & vfHk;qDrx.k dk fuosnu gS fd izFke vijk/k gS] xkao esa [ksrh&ckM+h dj vius ifjokj dk isV ikyrs gSa rFkk ?kVuk ds jkst viuh ekaxksa ds fy;s larks"kiw.kZ rjhds ls yksd ekxZ ij bDV~Bs gq, Fks] Hkfo"; esa ,slk ugha djsaxsa] fygktk mUgsa izksscsku dk ykHk fn;k tkos A^^ Learned counsel for the applicant states that bare reading of these lines clearly indicates that the punishment does not come under dis-qualification for any purpose. Hence, the respondents cannot terminate his services taking the plea of this punishment imposed upon him, which is under Probation of Offenders Act and does not preclude the applicant from getting any job as it does not come under any disqualification.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant also vehemently argued that the applicant was offered appointment under compassionate grounds taking into account the poor family condition of the applicant as on the sudden demise of his father the family was at the verge of starvation. Hence, the respondents should have taken into account that when the punishment imposed upon him cannot be termed as disqualification then the respondents should have applied his mind and took the decision sympathetically taking into consideration the pathetic condition of his family.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant relied his contentions on the judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. [SLP (C) No. 20525/2011, 4757/2014 and 24320/2014, decided on 21.07.2016, and states that in the three judges Bench, the Honble Apex Court has categorically discussed about the nature of offence and states that before giving any punishment, the respondents should have taken into account the gravity of his offence. He also relied upon the judgment of the Honble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Murari Lal Meena vs. Union of India and Ors. (DBCWP No. 9810/2016) decided on 12.09.2016.
6. Learned counsel for the applicant also states that the applicant being unemployed person and also in the eve of sudden demise of his father and also being only 08th class passed does not have that much knowledge of understanding of gravity or repercussion. He also argued that the nature of allegation against the applicant was only that there were peaceful protesting and drew our attention to page 19 and the nature of allegation against the applicant is quoted below: -
^^n.M ds izu ij lquk & vfHk;qDrx.k dk fuosnu gS fd izFke vijk/k gS] xkao esa [ksrh&ckM+h dj vius ifjokj dk isV ikyrs gSa rFkk ?kVuk ds jkst viuh ekaxksa ds fy;s larks"kiw.kZ rjhds ls yksd ekxZ ij bDV~Bs gq, Fks] Hkfo"; esa ,slk ugha djsaxsa] fygktk mUgsa izksscsku dk ykHk fn;k tkos A^^ So the learned counsel for the applicant states that from bare reading of the above lines clearly reveals that the nature of allegation against the applicant is not at all of any grave nature but of a very trivial nature and does not at all constitute any moral turpitude or grave offence and taking into consideration the learned Court has released the applicant under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act. Hence, the respondents should have taken into consideration his family condition and his educational qualification before passing the termination order.
7. Shri Anupam Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently opposed the contentions of the learned counsel for the applicant, and states that this argument is not tenable that the applicant is not an offender of grave offence. He states that it was categorically mentioned in the Attestation Form on top that the furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification and is likely to render the candidate unfit for employment under the Government., which is written in Hindi and English. Hence, knowing fully well, the applicant has concealed the material information and suppressed the fact of his pendency of a case while he has filled up the Attestation Form. Hence, the termination order passed by the respondents in no way can be termed as illegal or arbitrary. He also argues that the order of the learned Court below wherein it has been written that under Section 12 of Probation of Offenders Act, it will not be a disqualification for the applicant for any purpose, he states that it is only in regard to the conviction but not in regard to the suppression of material facts. He also states that conviction has not resulted in termination of his job but the suppression of pendency of his case in the Attestation Form has resulted in termination of his job. Hence, he states that the O.A. is liable to be dismissed.
8. Heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the documents on record as well as the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant.
9. The main question involved in this case is whether the suppression of the fact will amount to termination of the applicants job or not. In the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra), the Honble Apex Court has categorically discussed about the offence of grave nature or trivial nature and on the basis of that the Honble Apex Court has passed the judgment. In the case of Murari Lal Meena vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) the Honble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) completely based its judgments on the judgment passed by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. It is seen that the OA was filed here on 02nd March 2015 and the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. has been pronounced on 21st July 2016. The matter was subjudice before this Bench of the Tribunal in between the judgment of the Honble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. has been pronounced.
10. Taking into consideration the ratio decided by the Honble Apex Court and also by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) (supra), we feel, in the interest of justice, the matter to be considered again. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 20th February, 2015 (Annexure A/1) is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to reconsider and decide the case of the applicant in the light of the ratio decided by the Honble Apex Court in the case of Avtar Singh vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra) and also by the Honble High Court of Rajasthan (Jaipur Bench) in the case of Murari Lal Meena vs. Union of India and Ors. (supra).
11. Accordingly, the Original Application is disposed of with the above directions.
(MS. MEENAKSHI HOOJA) (MRS. JASMINE AHMED) ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER kumawat