Central Administrative Tribunal - Madras
D Sivasankaran vs Ut Of Pondicherry on 13 September, 2023
1 OA 1137/2017 CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH a OA/310/01137/2017 Dated Wednesday the 13" day of September Two Thousand Twenty Three CORAM: HON'BLE MS. LATA BASWARAJ PATNE, Member (J) HON'BLE MR. VARUN SINDHU KUL KAUMUDI, Member (A) D.Sivasankaran, S/o. Deivasigamani, residing at No. 17, Ayyanar Koil Street, Thattanchavady, Puducherry 9. ... Applicant By Advocate M/s. M. Gnanasekar Vs 1.Union of India, ~ rep by the Secretary to Government (Fire Services), Home Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 2.The Secretary to Government, Home Department, Government of Puducherry, Puducherry. 3.The Divisional Fire Officer, Fire Service Department, Government of Puducherry, No, 32, Canteen Street, Puducherry 1. ... Respondents By Advocate Mr. R. Syed Mustafa Suse oO 2 OA 1137/2017 ORAL ORDER
(Pronounced by Hon'ble Ms. Lata Baswaraj Patne, Member(J)) By this OA, the applicant has prayed the following reliefs :-
"i, To set aside (1) the order No. 793/Home/PPT-1/2016 dated 13.06.2016 and (2} order No. 1953/FSD/DFO/F1/2016-2017 dated 16.06.2017, passed by the 2° respondent and consequently direct the 2™ respondent to appoint the applicant as Fireman Driver Grade III with all consequential monetary and other service benefits and ii. Pass such further orders as are necessary to meet the ends of justice;
iii. | Award costs and thus render justice."
2. 'The brief facts of the case are as under:-
The applicant was provisionally selected to the post of Fireman Driver Grade TI]. Originally, his name was included in the select list against MBC quota on 29.10.2012. Subsequently, by order dt. 19.02.2013, his services were terminated and he filed OA No. 269/2013. The said OA was dismissed vide order, dt. 15.09.2014, on the ground that the applicant was ineligible to be included in the select list based on the marks secured by him, vis-avis the other candidates who had secured higher marks for the said post. Thereafter, the applicant filed an RA No. 3/2015 which was disposed of vide order, dt:
14.08.2015, with a direction tot he respondents to consider extending the offer of appointment to the applicant for the post of Fireman Driver Grade III against the vacancy in the MBC category which remained unfilled due to non-reporting of a selected candidate, A. Rajavelu. By memo, dt. 12.02.2016, the applicant was informed that he was provisionally in the select list. He appeared for medical certificate of fitness. On 13.06.2016, the applicant was served 3 , OA 1137/2017 intimidating that his selection was cancelled on the ground of a pending criminal case filed by his neighbour. Challenging the said order, the applicant filed OA No. 1088/2016. In the meanwhile, the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Puducherry acquitted the applicant of the charges under sections 294(b), 323, ~ 506 (i) IPC read with 34 IPC. The said OA was disposed of vide order, dt. 26.04.2017, with a direction to the applicant to file a' representation and on receipt of representation, the respondents were further directed to consider and dispose of the same within a period of four weeks. As such, the applicant submitted a representation, dt, 16.05.2017 which was rejected vide order, dt. 16.06.2017. Aggrieved, the applicant has filed this OA.
3. The respondents have appeared through their counsel and filed detailed reply opposing the relief on the ground that in accordance with the direction of this Tribunal issued in RA 3/2015 dt. 14.08.2015, the 'respondents acted and issued offer of appointment. In the meantime, criminal case, Cr. No. 162/2014 was registered against the applicant under section 294 (b), 323, 506 (i) IPC r/w section 34 of IPC, The case STC No. 219/2016 came for hearing before the ' - Court of Judicial Magistrate. Though the Court has acquitted the applicant vide its order, dt. 25.10.2016, however, it was not an honourable acquittal. Hence relying upon the order, dt. 01.12.2014, passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 10613 of 2014, in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and ors Ys. Parvez Khan, wherein it was held that that a candidate to be recruited to the Police Service must be worth of confidence and be worth of utmost 4 OA 1137/2017 rectitude and most have impeccable character and integrity. The respondents further contended that a person having criminal antecedents will not be fit in that category, even if he was acquitted. It must not be assumed that the person was credible to enter the police force. Hence the respondent authorities have rightly rejected the request of the applicant vide order dt. 16.06.2017.
4. Heard both sides and perused the records.
5. Learned counsel for applicant strongly argued that though the applicant was selected in the year 2012 and offer of appointment was issued subsequently in the year 2013, he was terminated. Therefore, in the earlier round of litigation in OA 269/2013 by which the applicant approached this Tribunal with a prayer for appointment. However, the said OA came to be dismissed on 15.09.2015, Since there is an apparent mistake on record, hence the applicant has filed RA 3/2015. The order of the Court disposing of the RA on 14.08.2015 and directions were given to the respondents to consider the case of the applicant by extending the offer of appointment for the post of Fireman Driver Grade II against the vacancy in the MBC category which remained unfilled due to non- reporting of the selected candidate, A. Rajavelu. Accordingly, the respondents have issued a memorandum dt. 12.02.2016 for certificate verification. A medical certificate for fitness was also submitted by the applicant. In the meantime, on the rivalry with the neighbours, criminal case has been registered against the applicant. However, subsequently the applicant came to be acquitted,
6. Learned counsel for applicant further submits that when the appointment 3 ' OA 1137/2017 has been denied to the applicant, the respondent authority have not applied their mind. Moreover, the respondents have relied upon the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh and ors Vs. Parvez Khan (supra) wherein the person claiming compassionate appointment was involved in various criminal cases. Looking into the moral turpitude, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as hereunder, "13. From the above observations of this Court, it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be a person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. Persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the police force. No doubt the Screening Committee has not been
-constituted in the case considered by this Court, as rightly pointed out by learned counsel for the Respondent, in the present case, the Superintendent of Police has gone into the matter. The Superintendent of Police is the appointing authority. There is no allegation of mala fides against the person taking the said decision nor the decision is shown to be perverse or irrational. There is no material to show that the appellant was falsely implicated. Basis of impugned judgment is acquittal for want of evidence or discharge based on compounding.
14. The plea of parity with two other persons who were recruited can also not help the respondent. This aspect of the matter was also gone into by this Court in Meher Singh (supra) and it was held :
"36, The Screening Committee's proceedings have been assailed as being arbitrary, unguided and unfettered. But, in the present cases, we see no evidence of this. However, certain instances have been pointed out where allegedly persons involved in serious offences have been recommended for appointment by the Screening Committee. It is well settled that to such cases the doctrine of equality enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution of India is not attracted. This doctrine does not envisage negative equality (Fuljit Kaur (2010 (11) SCC 455). It is not meant to perpetuate illegality or fraud because it embodies a positive concept, If the Screening Committee which is constituted to carry out the object of the comprehensive policy to ensure that people with doubtful background do not enter the police force, deviates from the policy, makes exception and allows entry of undesirable persons, it is undoubtedly guilty of committing an act of grave disservice to the police force but we cannot allow that illegality to be perpetuated by allowing the respondents to rely on such cases. It is for the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to examine whether the oO 6 OA 1137/2017 Screening Committee has compromised the interest of the police force in any case and to take remedial action if he finds that it has done so. Public interest demands an in-depth examination of this allegation at the highest level. Perhaps, such deviations from the policy are responsible for the spurt in police excesses. We expect the Commissioner of Police, Delhi to Iook into the matter and if there is substance in the allegations to take necessary steps forthwith so that policy incorporated in the Standing Order is stricily implemented."
15. Having given our thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the Division Bench of the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order rejecting the claim of the respondent for recruitment to the police service by way of giving him compassionate appointment.
16. Accordingly, we allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order. There will be no order as to costs."
Hence, in the matter of applicant, the case has not been considered on 'the charges that are levelled against the applicant and whether they are so serious. Subsequently, when the applicant was acquitted by the Criminal Court.
7. To support his arguments, learned counsel for applicant has relied upon the order passed by-the Hon'ble High Court of Madras in WP Nos. 1241 of 2015 and batch cases in the matter of §.Buvaneswaran Vs. Union Territory of Puducherry and ors. Vide its order dt. 24.02.2017, it was observed as hereunder, "7. In view of the subsequent events and more particularly, the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case (cited supra), we consider it deem and fit to direct the Government to examine the matter afresh and take a decision one way or the other.
8. In view of our decision to remit the matter to the Government of Puducherry, we consider it not necessary to deal with the facts of the individual cases."
Hence, learned counsel for applicant prays for a direction to the respondents in the same nature.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents has vehemently 7 . OA 1137/2017 opposed and argued that there is no ambiguity in the rejection order dt. 16.06.2017, The competent authority has applied its mind. Therefore, the issue of offer of appointment to the applicant was kept in abeyance due to his involvement in criminal case and the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India vide judgment dated 1* December, 2014 in-State of Madhya Pradesh and others Ys. Parvez Khan has held that it is clear that a candidate to be recruited to the police service must be worthy of confidence and must be person of utmost rectitude and must have impeccable character and integrity. A person having criminal antecedents will not fit in this category. Even if he is acquitted or discharged, it cannot be presumed that he was completely exonerated. The persons who are likely to erode the credibility of the police ought not to enter the Police Force. Hence, learned counsel for respondents. vehemently opposed the relief
9. Ttisto be noted that admittedly the applicant who was selected } in the y year '2012, However, because of some mistake which has been subsequently rectified therefore, the applicant's merit has gone down. When the applicant approached this Tribunal in OA No. 2369/2013, the relief has been declined, 'However, in RA No. 3/2015 by way of. modification, the respondents were directed to consider the applicant since there is a 1 vacancy available due to non-joining of the selected candidate, The respoudenls have considered the said irections however, because of the criminal case, the same was. kept i in abeyance. 'When | subsequently, the applicant came to be acquitted, the respondents have rejected ae ~ thus, --
8 OA 1137/2017the same claim on the ground that he has not been acquitted honourably.
'Howevei,.in view of the observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Avtar Singh. Relying upon the said direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Hon'ble High Court of Madras, vide its order dt, 24.02.2017 observed a "7. In view of the subsequent events and more particularly; the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Avtar Singh case (cited supra), we consider it deem and fit to direct the Government to examine the matter afresh and take a decision one way or the other.
8. In view of our decision to remit the matter to the Government of Puducherry, we consider it not necessary to deal with the facts of the individual cases." _ --
10. Therefore, we are of the opinion that if a direction is issued to the respondents in: similar nature to consider the claim of the applicant afresh, the
- 'purpose of filing the OA will be fulfilled.. Hence, impugned orders, dt.
'13.06.2016 and-16.06,2017'are hereby quashed and set aside; Respondents are directed to place the matter of the applicant before the committee for fresh consideration, after applying its mind and looking into the various guidelines
- issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the circumstances and take a decision within a period of three months from the date of receipt ofa copy of this order.
ll. OAis disposed of. No order as to costs. ee
--_--oeoe