Central Administrative Tribunal - Allahabad
Irfan vs North Central Railway on 7 August, 2025
OA No. 330/252 of 2024
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ALLAHABAD BENCH
ALLAHABAD
Pronounced on 07th day of August, 2025
Original Application No. 330/252 of 2024
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial)
Hon'ble Mr. Anjani Nandan Sharan, Member (Administrative)
Irfan, S/o Mainuddin, a/a 32 years, R/o Barazi Nai Basti, P.O. Nayepur,
Police Station, Phoolpur, District Varanasi
....Applicant
By Advocate: P.K. Dwivedi
VERSUS
PUNIT KUMAR 1. Union of India through the Chairman, Railway Board, Ministry of
MISHRA
Railway, New Delhi
2. General Manager, North Central Railway, Subedarganj, Prayagraj,
U.P.
3. Railway Recruitment Board, North Central Railway, Prayagraj
4. Assistant Police Commissioner, Head Office Commissionerate,
Varanasi
5. Assistant personal Officer through Divisional Railway Manager,
Prayagraj (Nawab Yusuf Road), Prayagraj
...... Respondents
By Advocate: Shri Vijay Kumar Singh
ORDER
By Justice Rajiv Joshi, Member (Judicial):
Heard Mr. P.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant and Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents at the time of hearing.
2. The instant Original Application under Section 19 of the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 has been filed for the following reliefs:
I. " to quash the order dated 12.10.2023 passed by Assistant Police Commissioner, Head Office Commissionerate, Varanasi and order dated 12.02.2024 passed by Assistant Personal Officer for Divisonal Rail Page 1 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 Manager Uttar Pradesh/Prayagraj and further direct the respondent authority to permit the applicant to join in service in pursuance of selection of applicant in pursuance of Advertisement No.RRC 01/2019 and further directed the respondents to pay the current salary of applicant and arrears of salary to the applicant w.e.f. 12.07.2023 with 18 % interest.
II. To issue such other and further order or direction, which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case.
III. To award cost of the petition in favour of the applicant."
3. The brief facts as narrated in the Original Application are that as under :-
a) An advertisement being RRC No.01/2019 was floated by the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA respondents, by which, applications were called for Group 'D' Post in Pay Matrix of level 1.
b) Pursuant to the same, the applicant being eligible applied for Group D post. Thereafter, an admit card was issued in favour of the applicant and he appeared in the selection process and was declared successful in written test, physical test.
c) Subsequently, result was published on 19.05.2023 and the Roll number of the applicant was found in the list of selected candidates.
d) The respondents also issued a letter dated 12.07.2023, by which the applicant was informed that he was selected to the post of Trackman.
e) Subsequently, the respondents sent the matter of the applicant for verification to competent Authority i.e., Assistant Commissioner, Commissionerate, Head Quarter Varanasi for verification of character etc.
f) In reply thereof, the Assistant Commissioner Police Headquarter, Commissionerate, Varanasi submitted a report, Page 2 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 wherein it was found that the three criminal cases were pending against the applicant viz., Case Crime No.378/17 u/S 147, 504, 506 of the IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi, Case Crime No.399/17, registered u/S 147, 504, 506 of IPC, P.S. Phoolpur, District Varanasi and Case Crime No.417/2017, registered u/S 147, 323, 354 (ka), 504 and 506 of the IPC.
g) It is pertinent to mention here that only one case being Crime No.378/2017 is pending against the applicant and in other cases, the Police has submitted its final report on 17.06.2017 and he was expunged by the Police itself. However, the PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA respondents considering the report of the Assistant Commissioner Police Headquarter, Commissionerate, Varanasi, passed the order dated 12.02.2024, by which denied the appointment of the applicant.
h) The order dated 12.02.2024 as well as report dated 12.10.2023 are impugned in this Original Application.
4. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed from the side of the respondents on 01.08.2024, wherein it has been stated as under :-
a) The applicant was selected by the Railway Recruitment Board in pursuance to the Notification No.RRC 01/2019 on the post of Track Maintainer Level-2. After selection, a letter was issued to the applicant on 03.07.2023 for document verification.
b) In the attestation form at para 12 (Ga), the applicant gave the details of criminal case No.399/2017, registered under Sections 147/504/506 and Criminal Case No.378/2017, registered under Sections 147/504/506, which are pending before the Competent Court of Law.Page 3 of 13
OA No. 330/252 of 2024
c) However, in the verification report submitted by the concerned police Station, it is stated that the aforesaid criminal cases are pending and the concerned Police Authorities have not given consent for giving appointment.
d) On the basis of report submitted by the Police officials, the respondents passed the impugned order, which is not permissible in the eyes of law.
e) The applicant also submitted a notary affidavit, wherein he concealed the fact of registration of Criminal Case No.417/2017. PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA
5. In reply, rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the applicant on 12.08.2024, wherein, reiterating the averments as made in Original Application.
6. Shri P.K. Dwivedi, learned counsel for the applicant assailed the impugned order on the following grounds:-
a) There is nothing like concealment on the part of the applicant of any material. One criminal case was pending against the applicant at the time of filing of Attestation Form, which was disclosed by the applicant.
b) Mere involvement in a criminal case is not an impediment for appointment to the post in question.
c) The applicant has been implicated in a FIR, which is under Trial and applicant has already been released on bail, considering the nature and gravity of offence. Therefore, the stigma attached with the character of applicant ought to be obliterated and he may be offer the appointment letter.
d) An incumbent should not have antecedent of such a nature, which may adjudge him unsuitable for the post. Mere Page 4 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 involvement in some petty kind of case would not render a person unsuitable for the job as after entry into Government service, a person has to abide by the service in conformity with the Constitution.
e) The impugned order has been passed without giving any cogent reason and without giving any opportunity of being heard.
f) Learned counsel for the applicant placed heavy reliance on the following judgments:-
I. Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors.1
PUNIT KUMAR
MISHRA
II. Satish Chandra Yadav Vs. Union of India2
iii. Dinesh Kumar Vs. State of U.P.3
7. Per contra, Shri Vijay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the contention of the learned counsel for the applicant and submitted as under:-
a) The applicant had given wrong information in the Attestation Form as he had concealed that one criminal case, which was instituted against him for obtaining appointment.
b) In the notary affidavit submitted by the applicant, the applicant concealed the fact of registration of Criminal Case No.417 of 2017.
c) In the Attestation Form, it was clearly mentioned that furnishing of false information or suppression of any factual information in the Attestation Form would be a disqualification, but it is the applicant, who ignored the said warning and concealed the material fact.
1 (2016) 8 SCC 471 2 2022 0 Supreme (SC) 982 3 2024 0 Supreme (All) 1437 Page 5 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024
d) The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is not applicable in the instant case as the applicant has given his own undertaking while filling up the attestation Form.
e) In verification, the Police Station submitted their report that two cases Criminal Case No.399/2017 and Criminal Case No.378/2017 were pending and they were not given their consent for giving appointment.
f) The respondents have passed the detailed order dated PUNIT KUMAR 12.02.2024, there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned MISHRA order.
8. We have considered the submissions so raised by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.
9. It reflects from the record that that admittedly, the applicant was selected for the post of Track-maintainer. The applicant also submitted an attestation form, wherein he disclosed that two cases were registered against him viz. Case Crime No.378/2017, which was pending and Case Crime No.378/2017, wherein final report has been submitted and the applicant did not disclose the Case Crime No.417/2017 though he was expunged in the said case. Subsequently a verification was made from the Commissionerate, Varanasi, wherein it was informed that three cases were registered against the applicant and out of which, Crime Case No.378/2017 is pending and chargesheet has already been filed, in Crime Case No.399/2017, Final Report has already been submitted; and in Crime Case No.417/2017; the name of the applicant was expunged from charge-sheet and as such, the Police Authorities has not recommended the character of the applicant. Thereafter, the respondents vide order dated 12.02.2024 denied the appointment of the applicant on the basis of Page 6 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 character verification report. For better appreciation of the matter, the impugned order dated 12.02.2024 is quoted as under:-
ये रवे बर्ती फोर्ड इरा. को नोटिफपकेशन सं. CEN-RRC-01/2019 के अंर्तर्डर्त ट्रै कभें िेनेय- I रेवर-01 भें चमनोऩयांर्त दस्र्तावेज सत्माऩन हे र्तु टदनांक 12.07.2023 को फुरामा र्मा था दस्र्तावेज सत्माऩन के सभम प्रस्र्तुर्त सऺमांकन पाभड के भद सं. र् ( A) भु. अ. सं.- 417/2017 के अंर्तर्डर्त धाया 147,323 354 (5) 504,506 IPC (B) भु. अ. सं.- 0399/2017 के अंर्तर्डर्त धाया 147,504,506 IPC & (C) भू. अ. स.- 0378/2017 अंर्तर्डर्त धाया-147,504,506 IPC थाना पूरऩुय जजरा वायाणसी भें ऩंजीकर्त होकय चाजडसीि भाननीम न्मामारम भें प्रेषषर्त है जो षवचायाधीन है की टिप्ऩणी अंफकर्त की र्मी ।
सम्फजन्धर्त जजरा अधधकायी वायाणसी से ऩुलरस वेयीफपकेशन कयामा र्मा प्रेषषर्त रयऩोिड के अनुसाय इयपान ऩुत्र श्री भैनूददीन ननवासी ग्राभ फयजी नई फस्र्ती, ऩोस्ि नमेऩुय, थाना पूरऩुय, जजरा वायाणसी, उत्तय प्रदे श स्व चरयत्र सत्माऩन सहामक ऩुलरस आमुक्र्त भुख्मारम कलभशनये ि वायाणसी द्वाया कयार्ी र्मी जजनकी जांच आख्मा 12.10.2023 के अनुसाय इयपान के षवरुद्ध र्तीन भुकदभें ऩंजीकृर्त होना ऩामा र्मा ( A) भु. अ. सं. 417/2017 के अंर्तर्डर्त धाया 147,323,354 (क) 504,506 IPC भें ऩंजीकृर्त हुआ है जजसभें चाजडसीि भें PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA इनका नाभ ऩथ ृ क कय टदमा र्मा है ( B)) भु. अ. सं. 0399/2017 के अंर्तर्डर्त धाया 147,504,505 IPC थाना स्थानीम ऩय ऩंजीकृर्त होकय टदनांक 27.07.2017 को FR रर्ी है ( C) भु. अ. सं. 0378/2017 के अंर्तर्डर्त धाया-147,504,506 IPC ऩंजीकृर्त होकय चाजडसीि भाननीम न्मामारम भें प्रेषषर्त है जो षवचायाधीन है । अभ्मथी के चरयत्र की संस्र्तुनर्त नहीं की जार्ती है । उऩयोक्र्त के अनर्तरयक्र्त ननमुजक्र्त के संफध ं भें ये रवे अधधवक्र्ता की षवधधक याम बी री र्मी ।
जजरा भजजस्ट्रे ि वायाणासी द्वाया चरयत्र सत्माऩन के संफध ं भें दी र्मी रयऩोिड एवं ये रवे अधधवक्र्ता दवाया दी र्मी षवधधक याम को सभावेलशर्त कयर्ते हुए वर्तडभान ऩरयद्रश्म भें ननमुजक्र्त प्राधधकायी द्वाया आऩको ननमुजक्र्त प्रदान नहीं की जा सकर्ती
10. It be noted that the one criminal case was pending out of three against the applicant on the date the vacancies were notified by the Railways, which was disclosed by the applicant in attestation form. In Avtar Singh v. Union of India, (supra), the Supreme Court held that even if the candidate has truthfully disclosed the details of the criminal case registered or pending against him, still, the employer has the right to consider his fitness for appointment and while doing so the effect of conviction and background facts of the case, nature of offence, nature of the post, etc. have to be considered. Even if the applicant is acquitted in the criminal case, the employer may consider the nature of offence, whether acquittal is honourable or has been made by giving benefit of doubt on technical grounds and the employer may Page 7 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 decline to appoint a person who is unfit or is of dubious character. The Supreme Court further held that if in a criminal case the incumbent has not been acquitted and the case is pending trial, employer may well be justified in not appointing such an incumbent or in terminating his services as conviction ultimately may render him unsuitable for job and the employer is not supposed to wait till outcome of the criminal case. In Avtar Singh' case (supra), the Supreme Court referred to the judgment in State of West Bengal v. S.K. Nazrul Islam, (2011) 10 SCC 184 in which the order of the High Court directing the employer to issue appointment letter to the employee, subject to final decision in a pending PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA criminal case was challenged by the State Government. The Supreme Court held that due to pendency of the criminal case under Sections 148/323/380/427/506 IPC, the High Court had committed an illegality in issuing a direction to appoint as till the case was pending, the employee could not have been held suitable for appointment to the post. In Nazrul Islam's case (supra), the Supreme Court observed that the authorities entrusted with the responsibility of appointment were under duty to verify the antecedents of the candidate to find out whether he is suitable for the post and so long as the candidate had not been acquitted in the criminal case, he could not possibly be held to be suitable for appointment to the post.
11. In case of Anil Bhardwaj v. Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, (2021) 13 SCC 323, while considering the order of the High Court refusing appointment to a judicial officer on the ground that a criminal case under Sections 498/406/34 IPC was pending during the recruitment process, the Supreme Court held that mere inclusion in the select list does not give an indefeasible right to a candidate to be appointed and the employer has a right to refuse appointment to the candidate included in the select list on any valid ground. Page 8 of 13
OA No. 330/252 of 2024
12. In Anil Bhardwaj' s case (supra), the candidate was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case but even then the Supreme Court refused to interfere on his behalf on the ground that the subsequent acquittal was irrelevant because the applicant was acquitted after the closure of recruitment process. The Supreme Court while considering the scope of judicial review in such matters held that unless the decision of the authority was arbitrary or actuated by mala fide, the decision of the appointing authority cannot be interfered with by the Constitutional Courts.
13. Further, the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 67 of 2018 PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA (Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Vs. Pradeep Kumar & Anr.) along with Civil Appeal Nos. 68 of 2018, 69 of 2018 and 70 of 2018 delivered on 08.01.2018, in which issue fell for consideration was as to whether, the candidature of the respondents who had disclosed their involvement in the criminal cases and also their acquittal could be cancelled by the Screening Committee on the ground that they are not suitable for the post of constable in Chandigarh Police and whether the court can substitute its views for the decision taken by the Screening Committee ? The Court opined that the Screening Committee had minutely examined the cases of the respondents and set aside the impugned judgement upholding cancellation of the candidature of the respondents holding there that "in a catena of judgments, the importance of integrity and high standard of conduct in police force has been emphasized. As held in case of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi and Another v. Mehar Singh, reported in (2013) 7 SCC 685, the decision of the Screening Committee must be taken as final unless it is mala-fide.
14. In the case in hand, admittedly, the respondents have taken a decision vide order dated 12.02.2024 after they came to know the about the pendency of the criminal case against the applicant and there is Page 9 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 nothing to suggest that the decision of the respondent-Railway is mala fide.
15. Similarly, the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police v. Raj Kumar, (2021) 8 SCC 347 held that courts exercising the power of judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. „Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate was excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment.‟ The PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA Supreme Court observed that public service - like any other, presupposes, that the State employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. It was observed that judicial review is permissible only to ensure that the norms prescribed for appointment are fair and reasonable and applied fairly in a non-discriminatory manner but the autonomy or choice of the public employer is greatest as long as the process of decision-making is neither illegal, unfair or lacking in bona fides. The observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraphs - 28 and 31 are reproduced below:--
"28. Courts exercising judicial review cannot second guess the suitability of a candidate for any public office or post. Absent evidence of malice or mindlessness (to the materials), or illegality by the public employer, an intense scrutiny on why a candidate is excluded as unsuitable renders the courts' decision suspect to the charge of trespass into executive power of determining suitability of an individual for appointment.
... ....
31. Public service - like any other, presupposes that the state employer has an element of latitude or choice on who should enter its service. Norms, based on principles, govern essential aspects such as qualification, experience, age, number of attempts permitted to a candidate, etc. These, broadly constitute eligibility conditions required of each candidate or applicant aspiring to enter public service. Judicial review, under the Constitution, is permissible to ensure that those norms are fair and reasonable, and applied fairly, in a non-discriminatory manner. However, suitability is entirely different; the autonomy or choice of the public employer, is greatest, as Page 10 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 long as the process of decision-making is neither illegal, unfair, or lacking in bona fides."
(emphasis supplied)
16. It has been held by the Supreme Court in its various decisions that the courts while judging the validity of executive decisions do not sit as a court of appeal but merely review the manner in which the decision was made and can only inquire as to whether the decision of the executive has been actuated by any mala fide or bias or the decision is based on irrelevant considerations or whether relevant considerations have been ignored while taking a decision. The courts while exercising their power of judicial review also look into the question as to whether PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA there is a proper application of mind by the concerned authority on the facts of the case. It has also been observed in different judgments that while judging the validity of the executive decisions, the courts must grant certain measure of freedom of 'play in the joints' to the executive and while exercising its power of judicial review, the constitutional courts do not substitute their own decision in place of the administrative decision. (Reference may be made to the observations in Paragraph Nos. 91 to 94 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India, (1994) 6 SCC 651).
17. At this stage, it would also be relevant to note that there may be certain actions and matters which are not susceptible to judicial process because of want of any judicially manageable standards to judge them. The correctness of such actions are also not to be judged by the Constitutional Courts in exercise of power of judicial review. In this context, it would be relevant to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in Paragraph-12 of its Judgment in A.K. Kaul v. Union of India, (1995) 4 SCC 73, which are reproduced below:--
"12. It is, therefore, necessary to deal with this question in the instant case. We may, in this context, point out that a distinction has to be made between judicial review and justiciability of a particular action. In a written constitution the powers of the various organs of the State, are limited by the provisions of the Constitution. The extent of those limitations Page 11 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 on the powers has to be determined on an interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Constitution.
Since the task of interpreting the provisions of the Constitution is entrusted to the Judiciary, it is vested with the power to test the validity of an action of every authority functioning under the Constitution on the touch stone of the Constitution in order to ensure that the authority exercising the power conferred by the constitution does not transgress the limitations placed by the Constitutions on exercise of that power. This power of judicial review is, therefore, implicit in a written constitution and unless expressly excluded by a provision of the Constitution, the power of judicial review is available in respect of exercise of powers under any of the provisions of the Constitution. Justiciability relates to a particular field falling within the purview of the power of judicial review. On account of want of judicially manageable standards, there may be matters which are not susceptible to the judicial process. In other words, during the course of exercise of the power of judicial review it may be PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA found that there are certain aspects of the exercise of that power which are not susceptible to judicial process on account of want of judicially manageable standards and are, therefore, not justiciable."
(emphasis supplied)
18. The applicant is on trial in a case which is registered under Section 147, 504 and 506 of the Indian Penal Code. The respondents, while passing the impugned order dated 12.02.2024, have considered the fact regarding the pendency of the criminal case against the applicant. The appointment sought by the applicant was on direct recruitment basis, therefore, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court in Avtar Singh's case (supra), a rigorous scrutiny regarding the suitability of the applicant for appointment cannot be considered as an improper exercise of discretion. Further, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Nazrul Islam (supra), the applicant cannot be considered as suitable for appointment in Railways till the pendency of the criminal case against him.
19. The records available with the Court do not show any improper motive or mala fide or bias in the competent authority and the impugned order has been passed on the basis of Police Verification Report, wherein they have not recommended the character of the Page 12 of 13 OA No. 330/252 of 2024 applicant. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant is no help to him.
20. In view of the above discussion, no interference is warranted in the instant Original Application. Accordingly, instant original application stands dismissed.
21. All MAs pending in this O.A. also stand disposed off.
22. No order as to costs.
(Anjani Nandan Sharan) (Justice Rajiv Joshi) Member(Administrative) Member (Judicial) PUNIT KUMAR MISHRA PM/ Page 13 of 13