Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Savitur Prasad vs M/O Defence on 11 July, 2018
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench
New Delhi
MA No.298/2018
in
OA No.707/2017
This the 11th day of July, 2018
Hon'ble Mr. Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman
Hon'ble Mr. Pradeep Kumar, Member (A)
Savitur Prasad S/o late J. P. Sharma,
Addl. CGDA
R/o 3, Pt. Pant Marg,
New Delhi-110001. ... Applicant
( By Mr. Mohit Chaudhary, Mr. Kunal Sachdeva and Mr. Rishabh
Jain, Advocates )
Versus
1. Ministry of Defence through its Secretary,
South Block, New Delhi-110001.
2. Shri (Prof) David R Syiemlieh.
Chairman, Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069.
3. Shri T. Jacob,
Secretary, Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069.
4. Shri Kesang Norbu Bhutia,
Under Secretary,
Union Public Service Commission,
Dholpur House, Shahjahan Road,
New Delhi-110069. ... Respondents
(By Mr. Hanu Bhaskar, Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Advocates )
MA-298/2018
2
ORDER
Justice L. Narasimha Reddy, Chairman :
This application is filed with a prayer to hold a preliminary inquiry as contemplated under Section 340 Cr.PC, and forward the complaint to the competent Magistrate to summon and punish the respondents for intentionally committing offences under Sections 193, 196, 199 and 200 IPC.
2. The applicant filed the OA with a prayer to quash and set aside the entire exercise conducted by the DPC that met in October, 2016 for considering the officers for promotion to the post of CGDA, leading to the decision of the ACC, as reflected in the information note dated 02.12.2016, and for certain other reliefs. The OA was dismissed on 22.03.2018. The applicant contends that in their counter affidavits, the respondents have made certain statements, which are not correct, and such incorrect statements were made intentionally and consciously. Reference is made to certain specific statements contained in the counter-affidavit. It is pleaded that making of such statements constitutes an offence punishable under relevant provisions of IPC, and that a complaint needs to be made under Section 340 Cr.PC.
MA-298/2018 3
3. Heard Shri Mohit Chaudhary, learned counsel for the applicant, and Shri Hanu Bhaskar and Shri Ravinder Aggarwal, learned counsel for the respondents.
4. Section 340 Cr.PC empowers a Court to initiate proceedings, if it appears to it that an offence punishable under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 195 Cr.PC has been committed in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, after preliminary inquiry, if any. The object is to ensure that the parties to the proceedings do not resort to fabrication of evidence, or filing of concocted documents. Such proceedings emanate mostly in cases where trial takes place and oral and documentary evidence is adduced. The documents or statements are put to scrutiny in the cross examination, and if it ultimately emerges that the fabricated documents are filed or false statements are made deliberately with an intention to mislead the Court, the occasion for initiation of proceedings under Section 340 Cr.PC arises. Sometimes, in extreme cases, the proceedings may be initiated if the Court records a clear finding to the effect that a wrong statement was made deliberately, or a fabricated document was filed, even if no trial is conducted in the case.
5. In the instant case, the OA was dismissed on 22.03.2018 through a detailed order running into 34 pages. Nowhere in the MA-298/2018 4 order, any finding was recorded that the statements contained in the counter affidavit are false, and that they have been made deliberately. That being the case, the question of initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.PC does not arise.
6. The MA is accordingly dismissed.
( Pradeep Kumar ) ( Justice L. Narasimha Reddy )
Member (A) Chairman
/as/