Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Rajnikant vs The Commissioner Of Police on 24 September, 2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 2920/2011
With
OA 1566/2012, OA 1581/2012, OA 1582/2012,
OA 1031/2012, OA 1762/2012 (MA1601/2012),
OA 2183/2012, OA 3038/2012, OA 3044/2012,
OA 3175/2012, OA 3178/2012, OA 3182/2012,
OA 3183/2012, OA 3135/2012, OA 3136/2012,
OA 3137/2012, OA 2912/2012, OA 3095/2012,
OA 3357/2012, OA 3458/2012 ( MA 2888/12),
OA 3633/2012, OA 4067/2012 ( MA 3429/12),
OA 4077/2012, OA 4085/2012 ( MA 3450/12),
OA 4200/2012, OA 4217/2012,
OA 4221/2012 (MA 3526/12), OA 4250/2012,
OA 4251/2012, (MA 3553/12), OA 4353/2012,
OA 4360/2012, OA 4361/2012, OA 922/2013,
OA 3623/2012 and OA 3629/2012
New Delhi this the 24th day of September, 2013
Honble Mr. Sudhir Kumar, Member (A)
Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J)
OA 2920/2011
Shri Rajnikant, Roll No.802355,
S/o Shri Suresh Kumar,
R/o VPO-Jatusana,
Th.& Distt-Rewari, Haryana-123401. Applicant
(By Advocate Mr Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Amit Anand )
OA 1566/2012
Shri Ashok Kumar Yadav,
Roll No. 803686,
S/o Shri Balkishan Yadav,
R/o VPO-Khaira, Near Najafgarh,
Near DVB Pole No.14,
Delhi-110043. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Administration, Licensing Authority, Mathura, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001. Respondents
(By Advocate Ms.Rashmi Chopra )
OA 1581/2012
Shri Krishan Kumar, Roll No. 807724,
S/o Shri Ranvir Raj,
R/o 221, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi-110007. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
5. The Licensing Officer,
Transport Department, North West-2,
Rohini Zone-II, Sector-16,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs.Renu George)
OA 1582/2012
Shri Ashish
S/o Shri Raj Singh,
R/o Vill-Godhari, P.O.Achhej,
Tehsil-Beri, District-Jhajjar,
Haryana, Roll No.-802808 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Administration, Licensing Authority, Mathura, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Jhajjar Licensing Authority, Bahadurgarh,
Haryana. .. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K. Singh for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat)
OA 1031/2012
Sunil Kumar Malik, Roll No.-803225
S/o Shri Nafe Singh,
R/o H.No.1071/9, Uttam Vihar Colony,
Near New Bus Stand,
Rohtak, Haryana-124001 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Transport Officer,
Regional Transport Authority,
Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.N.K.Singh for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat )
OA 1762/2012
MA 1601/2012
Shri Diman Singh
S/o Shri Gopi Singh,
R/o Vill-Hamidpur,
PO-Sarol, Distt-Aligarh, U.P.,
Roll No. 800723 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Administration, Licensing Authority, Mathura, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri Amit Anand )
OA 2183/2012
Shri Rajesh, Roll No. 806457,
S/o Shri Bhagwan,
R/o VPO-Chhudani, Tehsil-Bahadurgarh,
Distt-Jhajjar, Haryana-124507 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority,
Agra, through the Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
6. The Regional Transport Officer,
Jhajjar Licensing Authority,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr N.K.Singh for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat )
OA 3038/2012
Shri Parhlad, Roll No. 807526
S/o Shri Rajender Singh,
R/o Village PO Anandpur Jharoth,
Tehsil-Kharkhoda, Distt.-Sonepat,
Haryana-131401. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Ekal Seva Kendra, Gd.Floor,
Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon,
Hayana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. P.K.Gupta and Shri Manjit Singh)
OA 3044/2012
Shri Manoj Kumar, Roll No.806573,
S/o Shri Vinod Kumar
R/o H.No.14/151, Gali No.5,
Ram Nagar, Gurgaon, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana-124507 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Motor Licensing Officer,
Licensing Authority, Gurgaon,
Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. P.K.Gupta)
OA 3175/2012
Shri Anil Kumar, Roll No. 804120
S/o Shri Dhare Singh
R/o VPO Silani Distt. & Teh-Jhajjar
(HR)-124103 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Ekal Seva Kendra, Gd. Floor,
Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon,
Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs.Renu George and Shri Manjit Singh)
OA 3178/2012
Mahi Pal
S/o Shri Ram Avtar Yadav,
R/o Village & P.O. Deroli Ahir,
District-Mahendergarh, Haryana,
Pin-123028 Roll No. 805198 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police (DAP),
Police Headquarter, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
4. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
6. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Administration, Licensing Authority,
Mathura, through the Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg,
Lucknow-226001 Respondents
(By Advocate Shri B.N.P.Pathak)
OA 3182/2012
Shri Parveen Kumar
Roll No. 803452,
S/o Shri Raj Singh,
R/o H.No.253, Village Baljitpur,
Delhi-110039. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Tehsil-Nuh, District-Mewat. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Sumedha Sharma)
OA 3183/2012
Rishi Pal,
S/o Shri Azad Singh,
R/o VPO- Bhainsru Khurd,
District Rohtak, Hayana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police (DAP),
Police Headquarter, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
4. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
6. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Ekal Seva Kendra, Gd. Floor,
Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon,
Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandita & Mr. Manjit Singh)
OA 3135/2012
Shri Ravi Kumar, Roll No. 811442
S/o Shri Raj Singh,
R/0 H.No.-210, Vill-Garhi Bala,
PO-Bindroli, Distt-Sonepat,
Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr Amit Anand )
OA 3136/2012
Shri Satyender Kumar, Roll No.802710,
S/o Shri Satyabir Singh,
R/o VPO- Khatiwas Distt & Teh Jhajjar
State-Haryana Pin-124103 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Motor Licensing Officer,
License Authority,
Cum Secy RTA Jhajjar,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Renu George)
OA 3137/2012
Shri Kulbir Singh, Roll No. 804579,
S/o Shri Rambhaj,
R/o Village PO Nidan, Tehsil & Dist.- Jind,
Haryana-126114. .. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. B.N.P.Pathak )
OA 2912/2012
Sanjeet Kumar, Roll No.-801371
S/o Shri Krishan Kumar
R/o VPO-Khatiwas, The &
Distt.- Jhajjar (HR), Haryana-124001. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The District Transport Officer,
Imphal West District,
Imphal, Manipur-795001. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs Harvinder Oberoi )
OA 3095/2012
Shri Joravar Singh, Roll No. 809425,
S/o Shri Hukum Chand
R/o House No.261,
Village Shahbad Daulatpur,
Delhi-42 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy.Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
3. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority, Agra, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Licensing Authority,
Agra, through the Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Lucknow-226001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
District-Narnaul, Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.Vijay Kumar Pandita)
OA 3357/2012
Raj Pal
S/o Shri Satyabir R/o Village-Salooni,
PO-Barkoda Tehsil-Narnaul,
District-Mohindergarh,
Haryana-123001,
Roll No. 806390. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCTD Through
The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The District Transport Officer,
Motor Vehicles Department,
Wokha: Nagaland.
4. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
District-Narnaul, Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N.K.Singh for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat )
OA 3458/2012
MA 2888/2012
Shri Vikas Yadav, Roll No. 800724,
S/o Shri Rajbir Yadav,
R/o VPO-Jaffar Pur Kalan,
New Delhi-110073. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Commissioner of Transport,
Agra Zone, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg, Luckhow-226001 (UP)
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Administration, Licensing Authority, Mathura, through
The Transport Commissioner, UP
Tehri Kothi, MG Marg,
Lucknow-226001. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs.Renu George)
OA 3633/2012
Shri Manish Kumar, Roll No. 808165,
S/o Shri Dharambir Singh
R/o Village-Mandouri, PO-Mandoura,
TH-Kharkhoda, Distt- Sonepat,
Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Transport Commissioner,
Sikandra, Region-Agra,
Uttar Pradesh.
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO),
Mathura, Uttar Pradesh Respondents
(By Advocate Ms.Alka Sharma)
OA 4067/2012
MA 3429/2012
Sandeep Kumar, Roll No.806684,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police
S/o Shri Om Singh,
R/o VPO : Nehra,
Distt: Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas, Delhi,
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Ms Alka Sharma )
OA 4077/2012
Narender Singh, Roll No. 804228,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Lakshmi Singh,
R/o Vill : Naina Tatarpur,
PO : Bohla, Distt. Sonepat,
Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas, Delhi,
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Sumedha Sharma)
OA 4085/2012
MA 3450/2012
Rajesh Kumar, Roll No.811358,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police
S/o Shri Ramphal,
R/o VPO : Sargthal, Tehsil : Gohana,
Distt: Sonepat, Haryana Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas, Delhi,
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs Harvinder Oberoi )
OA 4200/2012
Surender Singh, Roll No. 804787,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police
S/o Shri Raj Singh,
R/o 237, VPO : Salahpur,
Mazra Dabas, Delhi-110081 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi through
its Chief Secretary, Delhi Secretariat,
I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs Sumedha Sharma)
OA 4217/2012
Parmod Kumar, Roll No. 811404,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police
S/o Shri Hoshiyar Singh,
R/o House No.74,Gali No.1,
Nai Basti Banker, Narela,
Delhi-110040. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Alka Sharma)
OA 4221/2012
MA 3526/2012
Phool Kumar, Roll No. 809600
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Dharmbir Singh,
R/o VPO :Niadana (Tigri),
PS & Tehsil: Meham,
Distt: Rohtak, Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs, North Block,
New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Raj Niwas, Delhi,
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Ms. Rashmi Chopra)
OA 4250/2012
Satish Kumar, Roll No.812246,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Umed Singh,
R/o VPO : Sehri, Tehsil :Kharkhoda,
Distt. Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Ms.Rashmi Chopra)
OA 4251/2012
MA 3553/2012
Kuldeep Malik, Roll No.803958,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Satyabir Singh,
R/o A-147, Gali No.3, Joraripur Extn.,
Delhi-110094 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal)
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. B.N.P.Pathak)
OA 4353/2012
Azad Singh, Roll No.808291,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police
S/o Shri Jai Pal Singh,
R/o C-70/1, Gali No.6, Mohan Puri,
Moujpur, Delhi-53 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police
Establishment, PHQ I.P.Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mrs. Harvinder Oberoi)
OA 4360/2012 )
Jitender Kumar, Roll No. 811376,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Lakhmi Singh,
R/o Vill: Naina Tatarpur, P.O. Bohla,
Distt : Sonepat, Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt.Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P.Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Establishment, PHQ, IP Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Shri N.K. Singh for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat )
OA 4361/2012
Sudhir Kumar Malik, Roll No.802053,
Recruit-Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Naresh Kumar
R/o Vill : Hasanpur, PO : Lishar,
Distt: Muzaffar Nagar, UP. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Anil Singal )
VERSUS
1. Union of India
Through Secretary,
Ministry of Home Affairs,
North Block, New Delhi.
2. Lt. Governor of Delhi,
Raj Niwas, Delhi.
3. Govt. of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary,
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi.
4. Commissioner of Police,
PHQ, I.P. Estate, New Delhi.
5. Deputy Commissioner of Police,
Establishment, PHQ, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N.K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat)
OA 922/2013
Shri Anil Kumar, Roll No. 801424,
S/o Shri Ramavtar,
R/o VPO-Paprawat, Pole No.-5,
Near Punjab National Bank,
Najafgarh, Delhi-110043 Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Transport Commissioner,
Sikandra, Region-Agra,
Uttar Pradesh.
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO),
Mathura,
Uttar Pradesh-281001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Transport Department,
Ekal Seva Kendra, Gd.Floor,
Mini Secretariat, Gurgaon,
Haryana. Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.B.N.P.Pathak )
OA 3623/2012
Shri Pawan Kumar, Roll No.807762,
S/o Shri Om Prakash,
R/O VPO- Luksar,
TH- Bhadurgarh, Distt. Jhajjar,
Haryana-124507. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan)
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCT Dehi through
The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Dy. Transport Commissioner ,
Sikandra, Region-Agra, UP
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Mathura, UP-281001
5. The Regional Transport Officer,
Jhajjar Licencing Authority,
Bahadurgarh, Haryana Respondents
(By Advocate Mr. N.K. Singh for Mrs.Avnish Ahlawat)
OA 3629/2012
Sandeep Singh,
R/o Shri Satbir Singh,
R/o VPO Bhaini Chander Pal,
Tehsil Meham,
Distt. Rohtak, Haryana. Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan )
VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCTD through
The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police,
Establishment,
Through Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
MSO Building, New Delhi.
3. The Deputy Transport Commissioner,
Sikandra, Region-Agra, UP
4. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer,
Mathura, UP Respondents
(By Advocate Ms.Rashmi Chopra )
O R D E R
Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J) :
The aforementioned 35 OAs involve identical facts and raise common question of law, thus are taken up for disposal together.
2. Since the counsel for the parties agreed that most of the documents are placed on record in OA 1566/2012 and the respondents also filed detailed counter reply through Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Advocate, in the said OA only, the common facts are derived from the same viz., the direct recruitment for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police is made under Rule 17-A (xx) of Delhi Police (Appointment & Recruitment) Rules, 1980 and Standing Order (SO) No.208. The recruitment is based on open competition. To fill up 676 vacant posts of Constable (Driver), applications were invited from suitable candidates through advertisement published in leading newspapers i.e. Hindustan Times (English), Nav Bharat Times (Hindi) dated 19.02.2009 and Employment News/Rozgar Samachar dated 21-27 February, 2009. The applicants applied for the said post and were subjected to selection. They were declared selected provisionally. In column 5 of the application form, they disclosed the particulars of their driving licences. The copies of driving licence of the applicants were sent to the concerned authorities for verification of their genuineness. Since the report regarding genuineness of the licenses of the applicants received by the Delhi Police was adverse, it could be viewed that they had furnished false information and notices were served upon them to show cause, as to why in terms of Standing Order No. 371/2009 stipulating action to be taken on furnishing false information/ bogus documents at the time of filling up application/ attestation forms for recruitment in Delhi Police, their candidature should not be cancelled. Finally, the candidature of all the applicants was cancelled and the present OAs are filed by the applicants questioning the cancellation of their candidature.
3. The common arguments put forth on behalf of the applicants through their counsels are that:
While issuing the order of cancellation of candidature, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Estt) did not take into account the stand taken by the applicants in reply to the show cause notice in as much as while taking the decision regarding cancellation of candidature of the applicants, the said authority has not dealt with various contentions raised in the reply;
The stand taken by the respondents in the present OA had also been taken in the earlier round of litigation and was not countenanced by this Tribunal in terms of order dated 18.05.2011 delivered in a batch of OAs;
In terms of the aforementioned order passed by this Tribunal in the batch of OAs, including OA 76/2011, before taking a final decision regarding cancellation of candidature of the applicants, the respondents ought to have conducted a detailed inquiry, giving opportunity to the applicants to participate in the same and after such inquiry alone, a final decision regarding the validity of their driving licence/ candidature could be taken;
The applicants themselves are the victim of the fraud played upon them by the authorities which has issued the licences in question;
The material collected by the ACP (Crime) unilaterally could not be relied upon, as the question put by him to the staff of the transport authority was not an inquiry but only a query;
In the present case, if not a kind of regular inquiry conducted before imposing the penalty, at least a preliminary inquiry could have been conducted;
Once a criminal case has been registered regarding forgery, if any, committed in issuance of licences, at least their candidature could be kept alive till culmination of the criminal trial;
In certain cases, the authorities competent to issue driving licence in Haryana have filed affidavit confirming that they had renewed the licences issued to the candidates;
Once after expiry of more than two years, the investigating agency is not able to file charge sheet/ report to conclude that in issuance of licence to the applicants any fraud was committed, the cancellation of the candidature of the applicants on the ground that licences produced by them are forged, is unjustified;
In submitting the driving licences issued to them by the competent authority, the applicants did not commit any fraud or forgery. The forged document can be one which is manufactured by the person and relied upon by him. The applicants are not running licensing authorities and they got the licences as per practice prevalent in the offices given responsibility to discharge the function of issuing driving licences by the State;
Though the report dated 4.09.2010 was available at the time of pendency of the batch of OAs decided in terms of order dated 18.05.2011, the respondents concealed the same from the Tribunal; and Once the relevant records had been seized on 4.09.2010, there is no sanctity of any report given by the licensing authority (Mathura) after the said date.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents viz. Mrs. Avanish Ahlawat, Ms. Renu George, Shri Vijay Pandita, Ms. Rashmi Chopra, Smt. P.K. Gupta, Shri Amit Anand, Smt. Sumedha Sharma, Shri B.N.P.Pathak, Ms. Harvinder Oberoi and Ms. Alka Sharma submitted:-
Once it is reported that the driving licence submitted by the applicants is not valid, it is immaterial who is responsible for committing irregularities in issuance of the same;
The respondents had empanelled 600 candidates for being considered for appointment as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police and these are only 220 candidates whose licenses are found invalid. Thus, it is not so that the procedure for issuance of driving licences is corrupt/ tainted/ irregular every where;
That once the respondents could found the driving licences of the applicants invalid, they were well within their power to cancel their candidature without delving any further into the matter but still having due regard to the orders of the Tribunal and the principle of natural justice and fair play, they deputed senior police officers to visit the licensing authorities to find out the truth;
The full fledged enquiry report referred to in the order of this Tribunal dated 18.05.2011 does not mean that the regular disciplinary enquiry before penalizing a Government servant need to be held. The respondents took all such steps as they could take to find out the truth. The action taken against the applicant is not precipitated;
(v) The applicants have not given any explanation for procuring driving licences from the authorities different from the one within the jurisdiction of which they are permanently residing; and
(vi) The principle of natural justice cannot be stretched too far and since the possession of driving licence was one of the requisite qualifications for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, the candidature of the applicants who did not possess valid driving licence, has rightly been cancelled.
They placed reliance on the following judgments:
State of T.N. and other Vs. A. Gurusamy, (1997) 3 SCC 542 Rampreeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intemediate Education and others, (2003) 8 SCC 311
(iii) Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan and others Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325
5. In rejoinder, the learned counsel for the applicants read out detailed reply to the show cause notice submitted by the applicants to espouse the stand taken by them in it and to buttress their argument that while passing the final orders, the respondents have not dealt with the various pleas taken by them in their defence. For easy reference, the stand taken by Shri A.K. Yadav (applicant in OA 1566/2012) in his reply to the show cause notice as projected by his counsel is summarized hereinbelow:
The respondents had issued a show cause notice dated 16.01.2012 on the basis of report dated 28.12.2011 given to Shri Kuldip Singh, Inspector by the transport authority of Mathura. The said report is regarding driving licence No.15337/MTR/07, thus the entire show cause notice is based on a wrong report as it is admitted case that the number of driving licence of the applicant Shri A.K. Yadav is 15237/MTR/07. In the circumstances, the previous report which authenticated the driving licence No. 15237/MTR/07 as the licence issued to the applicant should be deemed to be correct and the show cause notice dated 16.01.2012 should be quashed;
The report dated 28.12.2011 cannot be relied upon as the same is based on wrong facts;
Once the driving licence of the applicant had been renewed by the issuing authority or renewed or endorsed by some other authority, then as per law, such authorities are estopped from describing the licence as fake or forged. In the case of Shri A.K. Yadav, his licence had been renewed by the transport authority Mathura w.e.f. 23.12.2011 to 22.12.2014 and the fee receipt No.088379 was issued. The renewal of driving licence No. 15237/MTR/07 issued to the applicant was done by the Mathura Transport Authority on 24.12.2011;
The investigation done by the department in respect of genunity and validity of the driving licence of the applicant subsequent to intervention by the Tribunal is merely a sham. Either the Delhi Police sought clarification from the transport office, Agra or Mathura by sitting in Delhi or some officer visited the said office, procured information from ARTO Office Mathura & Agra and relied upon it in the final report. The investigation directed to be carried out by Delhi Police at behest of the orders of the Tribunal was never conducted in the right manner but the steps taken by the respondents were only to seek clerical information from the authority and the authority also gave answer to them without application of mind. The object of the inquiry is to ascertain whether at any given point of time, the driving licence in question was issued to the applicants or not. If there was record in the concerned licencing authority to show that the driving licence was issued, there could be no reason to consider the licence as forged. The Delhi Police also ought to have verified the record which was formed the basis of the report of RTO Mathura and Agra;
It was incumbent upon Delhi Police to conduct the inquiry regarding the points raised in the show cause notice. No such inquiry, as directed by the Tribunal, was conducted before issuing show cause notice. The department needed to consider the report dated 4.09.2010 wherein the rampant corruption in transport offices at Mathura and Agra was described. From the said report, it is apparent that the licences possessed by the applicants were issued by the licencing authorities, Mathura and Agra;
The allegation of incomplete address given by the applicant is irrelevant. The applicant adopted no deceitful means to procure the licence. The example of concealment of facts by the transport authorities Mathura and Agra is mentioned in report/letter dated 4.09.2010. The portion of the letter dated 4.09.2010 read out by Mr. Sachin CHauhan is extracted hereinbelow:-
Driving License No.15, 237/M/07 dated 15.11.2007 mentioned at Sr. No-61 of year 2007 shown as issued to Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Bal Kishan Near Sadar, Mathura but following 03 persons are also issued driving licenses, the details of which given below:-
Register No./Page No. Name of License Holder Validity Pagination 108/104 Related to year 2007 Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Mahtab 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2027 -
107/related to year 2007 (no. of pages are not mentioned) Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Dhanpat 24.10.2007 to 23.10.2007 15.12.2008 109/246 related to year 2007 Sh. Babloo S/o Sh. Man Singh 24.10.2007 to 23.10.2027 Thus, by virtue of present report it is crystal clear that it is being admitted by the competent authority regarding the issuance of driving license to Shri Ashok Kumar (i.e. applicant) on driving license no.15-237/M/2007 dated 15.11.2007 alongwith three other persons. The verification of this driving license when conducted by Delhi Police then only limited information was provided i.e. that the aforesaid driving license is issued in the name of Shri Anil Kumar and the fact of issuing the same license to three other persons including Shri Ashok Kumar was concealed from the department of Delhi Police. This example of Shri Ashok Kumar, S/o Shri Bal Kishan alongwith proof vide report dated 04.09.2010 clearly establishes that material facts regarding the issuance of driving license like that of applicant are concealed by the Mathura and Agra Transport Authority as otherwise it will be established on record the fraud on the part of the authorities that too to an investigating agency which is outside the purview of the State Govt. of UP. It was never the stand of the licencing authorities that the driving licence was not issued by them. The only view taken by the authorities was that the proper procedure for issuance of licences could not be followed;
Once the applicant possessed a driving licence as per Section 2 (10) of Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, it cannot be viewed that the licence is invalid. As per report dated 3.03.2010 given by the transport office, Mathura, his licence is valid and genuine. The two reports dated 3.05.2010 and 7.06.2010 issued by Mathura Licencing Authority mentioned in the show cause notice are in contradiction of the report dated 3.03.2010 and could not be relied upon. Besides, the impugned order and show cause notice suffer from infirmity for the reason that when the reports dated 3.05.2010 and 7.06.2010 are referred to therein, the report dated 3.03.2010 has not been dealt with. The Respondents being the State should not conduct themselves selectively but should act fairly; and The applicants cannot be made to suffer for the irregularities committed by the licencing authorities in issuance of the licences in question. Once the record relating to issuance of the licence to the applicant was available with the licencing authority, there is a presumption that the licence available with him is issued by the concerned competent authority and cannot be considered defective.
In sum and substance, the plea taken by the applicant in reply to the show cause notice is that the licence issued to him by the authorities is valid. Thus, one of the issues which we need to address is whether it was for Delhi Police to take a view regarding validity of the driving licence of the applicants or the only course open to them was to go by the information submitted by the licencing authorities.
6. In view of the rival contentions of the parties, following issues arise to be determined by us:
(a) When there are conflicting reports given by the concerned licencing authorities, whether the Delhi Police could accept the report against the applicants and ignore the one which was in their favour;
(b) Whether before canceling the candidature of the applicant, the Delhi Police ought to have conducted full fledged inquiry giving opportunity to the applicants to participate in the same and the absence of such inquiry resulted in violation of principles of natural justice and in disregard to the orders of this Tribunal dated 18.05.2011;
) Whether Delhi Police could have taken a view regarding validity of the driving licence of the applicants and, if not so, whether the DCP (Estt) committed any error in not addressing the stand taken by the applicants in reply to the show cause notice;
Whether the report of the transport authority issued after the offices were sealed could be relied upon;
Whether the applicants have any indefeasible right to appointment as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police even when their licences are considered invalid;
Whether before canceling the candidature of the applicants, the Delhi Police ought to have awaited the outcome of the criminal case registered for forgery committed in issuance of licences to the applicants; and Whether the licences issued disregarding the prescribed procedure can be considered as forged and the applicants can be said to have committed any forgery.
7. The first and foremost question arises to be determined in the present OA is when there are conflicting reports given by the concerned authorities regarding validity of the licences to the applicants, whether the respondents are justified in accepting such report wherein the licences of the applicants are termed as invalid and ignoring those reports wherein they are termed as valid. It is seen that the licences possessed by the applicants and submitted with the recruiting agency as their valid driving licence could be commented upon by the licencing authorities differently at different points of time. Such comments are broadly:
not found in record;
(ii) not issued in the name of candidate;
(iii) issued in favour of some other person;
(iv) issued, but without depositing fee; and
(v) valid.
8. The final report in respect of all the licences are:
driving licence issued in favour of some other person;
(ii) not issued in favour of candidate/applicant; and
(iii) fee for HTV driving licence not deposited For easy reference, the letter No.541/Transport/Sa. Par./Mathura-Licence Enquiry/2010 dated 4.09.2010 containing the summary of report given by the concerned licencing authorities in respect of licences possessed by the applicants placed on record by the respondents, is reproduced hereinbelow:
Office Deputy Transport Commissioner, Agra Region, Agra No.-541/Transport/Sa.Par./Mathura-Licence Enquiry/2010 Dt.04.09.2010 To Chief Secretary Transport, Uttar Pradesh Government, Lucknow Sub.: Verification of 220 Nos. Driving License of Sub-Divisional Transport Officer, Mathura by Delhi Police.. regarding.
Sir, Kindly refer to above cited office letter No-122/PST/2010 dated 10.8.2010 in which direction were given for verification of records pertaining to above driving licenses.
The undersigned in reference of above order gave direction to Divisional Transport Officer, Agra vide letter dated 10.8.2010 for producing verification report of records and in compliance of this Divisional Transport Officer, Agra informed while forwarding the report dated 3.5.10 that all the concerned records were brought to Agra from Mathura and for re-verification of records staff of Agra & Mathura Office called at Agra for re-verification of records. License records of Mathura Office were scrutinised with the help following staff of Mathura Office i.e. Sh. B.K. Pandey, Passenger Tax Officer, Sh. Om Prakash, Divisional Inspector, Sh. Pradeep Agarwal, Sr. Clerk, Sh. R.D. Upadhyaya, Sr. Clerk and Staff of Agra Office, Smt. Sunita Verma, Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Parvartan) First, Sh. S.P. Yadav, Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Legal), Sh. Rajiv Bansal, Divisional Inspector (Legal), Sh. Yogender Agarwal, Sr. Clerk, Sh. Rajender Parsad Saraswat, Sr. Clerk, Sh. Satish Kumar Arya, Sr. Clerk, Sh. K.K. Tiwari, Sr. Clerk.
Before giving the details of fact cleared from scrutinized of records it is necessary to informed that Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Administration), Mathura vide his enquiry report submitted to Dy. Commissioner of Police, Establishment, Officer of Police Commissioner, New Delhi regarding 220 Licenses that fees of 220 license holders were not deposited in office and all the license holders were not residing at mentioned local address. The undersigned also see the facts in addition to above points of enquiry that to whom licenses were actually issues as marked Serial No. of 200 licenses list. In addition to above, the following points are considered during enquiry i.e. tempering of record, attempt to corrupt record, issued forgery/fake licenses. The enquiry report after scrutinizing the records is forwarded as below:-
1. The position of 220 Driving Licenses in reference of above letter dated 04.05.2010 of Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Administration) (Signed list of Passenger Tax Officer, Mathura and other officials is enclosed):-
? 03 Driving Licenses Sr. NO-29, 168, 184) issued as per rule. Page numbering of Driving License marked at Sr. NO-184 not done as Commercial Licence by Mathura Office.
? The entry of 21 Driving Licenses (Sr. No.04, 07, 13, 14, 55, 59, 72, 81, 91, 139, 145, 148, 152, 154, 180, 182, 187, 199, 208, 209, 216) found in records but fees were not deposited while issuing of license. So, theses licenses are not valid. It is to point out that issuing date of Linceses at Sr. No-154 & 209 was Sunday/Holiday.
? The license number of 08 driving licenses (Sr. No-09, 78, 95, 133, 138, 164, 177, 212) not related to license number issued on that date, so entries not exists in record.
? 188 Driving Licenses (remaining list) issued to another person instead of mentioned list.
2. It is found after scrutinizing the records that Driving licenses Number were allotted on the year wise basis by Mathura Office i.e. 01 Sr. No. driving license allotted on first day of year and register was not closed on last day of the year and on next day Sr. No.01 has been allotted i.e. first day of the year. It may be possible that there should not be bad intention behind it but personnel have gain illegal profit from this which is clear from above bullet point -03 from driving licenses marked at 09, 78, 95, 133, 138, 164, 177, 212.
3. Register of less pages were generally used, some registers have only 45 pages for example Register No-107 & 110 of year 2006. Similarly, register No-38 of year 2006 have found only 11 pages. Actually register have more pages but pages were tear and bind.
4. Many register were prepared in a year. As 90 Nos. in 2006, 120 Nos. in 2007 and 42 Nos. in 2008 etc. And many registers were used side by side and moreover one Sr.No. used for more than one licences for example License No-3418/MTR/07 of Register No-23/08 was issued to Radhey Chaudhary, however the same licence Sr. No. of Register No-24/167 was issued to Sh. Israrrul Haq.
5. Register No-21 related to year 2008 in which entry of Driving Licenses No-19159 (Sh. Tejvir Singh S/o Sh. Ramji Lal validity dated 31.12.08 to 31.12.28) to Driving Licence No.19208 (Sh. Pankaj S/o Sh. Sitav Lal) are made have only 60 pages and remaining approx. 132 pages were bind as register with the help of needle and thread.
6. The same serial number of driving licenses issued in same year were found in many register, for which one driving license number issued to various persons. Serial number-39 of year 2007 marked as Driving License Number-9827/MTR/07 were found in following 03 registers, the details of persons to whom driving license issued is given below:-
Register No./ Page No. Name of License Holder Validity Pagination 65/21 related to year 2007 Sh. Sandeep Sharma S/o Sh. Mangey Ram Sharma 11.07.07 to 10.07.2027 18.08.2008 67/73 related to year 2007 Sh. Yashpal s/o Sh. Devi Charan 13.02.07 to 12.07.2027 -
66/ related to year 2007 (no. of pages are not mentioned) Sh. Wasim Akram S/o Sh. Din Mohammad 11.07.07 to 10.07.2027 Similarly Driving Licenses No-15, 237/M/07 dated 15.11.2007 mentioned at Sr. No-61 of year 2007 shown as issued to Sh. Ashok Kumar S/o Sh. Bal Kishan near Sadar, Mathura but following 03 persons are also issued driving licenses, the details of which given below:-
Register No./ Page No. Name of License Holder Validity Pagination 108/104 related to year 2007 Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Mahtab 27.10.2007 to 26.10.2027 -
107/related to year 2007 (no. of pages are not mentioned) Sh. Suresh Kumar S/o Sh. Dhanpat 24.10.2007 to 23.10.2027 15.12.2008 109/246 related to year 2007 Sh. Babloo s/o Sh. Man Singh 24.10.2007 to 23.10.2027 Similarly Register No-100 related to year 2007 mention at Sr. No-94 of list shown as Driving License No-14582/M/07 issued on 15.11.2007 and pagination as commercial licenses shown on 18.12.2008 and issued to Sh. Hari Parkash S/o Sh. Dharamvir Near Krishna Nagar, Mathura but following 03 persons are also issued driving licenses, the details of which given below:-
Register No./ Page No. Name of License Holder Validity Pagination 99/10 related to year 2007 Sh. Ajit Singh S/o Sh. Krishan 01.11.2007 to 31.10.2027 24.02.2009 100/58 related to year 2007 Sh. Satyaprakash S/o Sh. Chippi 15.10.2007 to 14.10.2027 -
105/ related to year 2007 (no. of pages are not mentioned) Sh. Sumit Mathura S/o Sh. Sukhbir Singh 15.11.2007 to 14.10.2027 19.12.2008
6. Similarly more than one licenses were issued to people against Sr. No-15, 16, 26, 31, 35.
7. The number of valid individual licenses & commercial driving license in state are 80,28,441 and 9,66,315 respectively on 31.03.2009 i.e. closing of year 2008-09. The total number of license is 89,94,756 and ratio of commercial license is approx. 11%. But various register found in Mathura office in which cent-percent driving licenses were paginated as commercial which indication to more possibility of fake entries.
8. The investigation performed with personnel of Mathura Officer involved in investigation regarding entry of driving license made in register that whose handwriting is this but in respect of most of handwriting, staff of Mathura office fails to identify the handwriting. Here it is mention that staff of Mathura office told that the signature is of Sh. Harender Singh Chahar, Asstt. Divisional Inspector (Legal) as Licensing Authority on driving licenses as commercial licenses except some exception. One sr. no. of driving license found entered in various licenses register nearby and there is huge possibility that one register was issued in office and other was parallel managed at outside office managed by someone racket and latterly included in records of office. Thus records of driving license of Mathura became corrupt. Thus genuineness of driving license can only be made on the basis of fees deposited by driving license holder to cash section on that day not on the basis of entry made in register.
9. On scrutiny of records this facts also cleared that the records which would be corrupt have most of all the license holder are male & young. There would be more possibility of genuiness of records where license holder are female or old man. Similarly the register in which only once or twice licenses has been paginated as commercial records there is no possibility of mistake wherever there are some registers in which cent percent licenses has been paginated as commercial. As ration given above between personnel & commercial license, it is cleared that in no one register of authority could be practically possible paginated cent percent as commercial license. And there is no refusal of possibility that records could be corrupted for personal gain by the then official of license official.
Here, it is also mention that Sh. Rjesh Kumar Verma, Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Admn.) Mathura was working since June, 2006, Sh. Om Prakash, Divisional Inspector (Legal), Mathura since May, 2006 and Sh. Harender Singh Chahar, Asst. Divisional Inspector (Legal) working continuously since 2006. The work relating to License Branch was performed by Sh. Harender Singh Chahar, Asst. Divisional Inspector (Legal), Mathura and Sh. Jagdish Prasad Rawat, Sr. Clerk and Sh. Makhan Singh, Sr. Clerk was working in license department. The work of learning license was perfored by Sh. Bhim Katyan, Jr. Clerk. In Sept. 09 when episode of Kasab comes in light then a case was registered u/s -419, 420, 468, 470, 479 & 120-B of IPC against Sh. Harender Singh Chahar, Asst. Divisional Inspector (Legal), Sh. Jagdish Prasad Rawat, Sr. Clerk and Sh. Makhan Singh, Sr. Clerk at PS Hi-Way Mathura and they were sent to jail for this reason and after that they were released on bail by Honble court, proceeding of department enquiry is under consideration against them and they are still suspended. Here is no refusal of possibility of their hand in corrupt record and corrupt pagination. Sh. Rajesh Kumar Verma, Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Admn.) Mathura who was working since 2006 being head of department also not supervise the staff properly and he might be held responsible for supervisory lapse. However, Sh. Om Prakash, Divisional Inspector (Legal) who was not allotted work of driving license but he should be aware being head of department and stop above serious irregularity and report it to higher officer. This shows gross negligence against govt. duties.
The above driving license register kept in closed almirah as safe custody by special effort of Divisional Transport Officer Agra. The above enquiry report of 220 driving licenses alongwith the verification report prepared by office forwarded for further necessary action.
9. As has been noticed hereinabove, the issue arises to be determined is when there are conflicting reports, which report may be accepted. Generally one needs to go by the facts and circumstances in which the response is given and procured. The exercise undertaken before the response is given i.e. whether the same is perfunctory or is given after due deliberation and at whose behest the report is given. In case the circumstances in which the reports given are conflicting, one needs to go by the latest reports. As mentioned above, in the present OAs, the final reports are:-
fee for licence not deposited;
(ii) licence is issued in the name of some other candidate;
(iii) licence is not issued to the applicant, etc.
10. Besides, it is seen that the subsequent report/ latest report given by the authorities are with reference to the communication or in response to the query from the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Prov. & Logistics), 5, Rajpur Road, Delhi. In communication dated 3.05.2010 in the case of AK. Yadav, the Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer, Office of Deputy Divisional Transport Office, Mathura mentioned that the verification of 220 driving licences had been done on the basis of fee deposited to Cash department and as per record, it was found that the fee had not been deposited and the address of the licence holder was found incomplete. In schedule to the said report, it could be mentioned that in the event of not depositing fee, the licence could not be issued. For easy reference, relevant extract of the schedule (in the case of A.K. Yadav) is quoted hereinbelow:
Fee has been deposited hence licence can be deemed to be valid for light Motor Vehicle but pagination for Heavy Motor Vehicle is wrong and further fee has also not been deposited.
11. Besides, in letter dated 11.06.2010 placed at Annexure A-5 to the said OA, it is again mentioned that all the 200 commercial licences in respect of which report was sought, were not issued by the said authority, as per procedure. The English translation of the said letter placed on record by the applicant himself reads as under:
OFFICE OF DY. DIVISIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER, MATHURA No.214/D.L./Verification/2010 Dated 7.6.2010 To, The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Establishment, O/o Police Commissioner, New Delhi.
Sub: Verification of 220 Driving License-regarding.
Sir, Please refer to your office letter No.8417/Rect. Cell/AC-III/PHQ Delhi dated 1.6.2010 regarding sending of re-verification report of 220 Driving License.
In this regard vide this office letter No.103/DL/Verification/2010 dated 3.5.2010 it has been informed that enquiry has been conducted regarding pagination and fee deposit in Cash Department. On the basis of report submitted by Cash Department the report is being prepared. As per report of office, some license could be valid for light motor vehicle but not valid for Heavy Motor Vehicle. However, all 220 Heavy Motor Vehicle was not being issued properly.
The addresses of License Holder got verified and found that no address of any license holder has been complete or correct.
Encl: List of 220 License Holder.
Sincerely,
-sd/-
Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Admn.) Mathura Copy to: Forwarded to Divisional Transport Officer, Agra w.r.t. letter No-103/DL/Verification/2010 dated 3.5.10.
Asstt. Divisional Transport Officer (Admn.) Mathura
12. The latest report in the case of A.K. Yadav is that driving licence no.15237/MTR/07 was issued in the name of Shri Anil Kumar for LMV-II. The letter written by the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Divisional Transport Office, Mathura addressed to Shri Kuldip Singh, Inspector Delhi Police in this regard reads as under:
From the said letter, it appears that after the order passed by this Tribunal, steps were taken by the respondents to verify the validity of the licences issued to the applicants and only when the concerned licencing authorities authenticated that the licences possessed by the applicants were not valid, their candidature was cancelled. No circumstances are put forth by the applicants to substantiate that not the latest report or final report given by the licencing authorities but the initial or intermediary reports which were in their favour are more reliable. Rather, it is claimed by the respondents that before the final report in respect of licences issued from Agra and Mathura offices of Divisional Transport Authorities, an in depth verification was conducted and verification report of 220 driving licences was prepared. In the said report, the licences of none of the applicants who claimed their licences issued from Licencing Authorities, Mathura or Arga were considered valid. The summary of various reports given by Licensing Authorities in respect of applicants in each OAs as produced by Ms. Rashmi Chopra, advocate read as under:-
D/L Verification reports 1st Report IInd Report IIIrd Report 1 2920/2011 Rajni Kant 802355 2.2.1987 76828/DR 30.6.2006 Churachander Pur (Manipur) (I) 31.3.2010 Licence not found in record (II) Issued in the name of candidate (III) 30.7.2010 D/L issued in favour of Miss Niangneihoih instead of candidate (III) 22.10.2012 D/I issued in favour of Miss Niangneihoih instead of candidate. He had got issued an another D/L No.78497/Ch. Which was issued by the authority to the applicant w.e.f. 30.07.2009 for HTV after submitting his application to the post, as he was applied for the post on 29.3.2009. 16.9.2010 79 3.6.10 2 1581/12 82/11 Krishan Kumar 807724 07.04.1984 7322/AG/06 dt.25.04.2006 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 29.04.2010 D/L invalid 17.01.2011 D/L issued in the name of Mahender Meena s/o C.S.Meena r/o G-194/ASouth Railway Colony, Agra or M/C & LMV 03.12.2010 405 30.12.2010 3 1582/12 250/11 Ashish 802808 17.10.1987 12041/M/06 dt.06.10.2006 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2011 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid 30.08.2011 Not issued in favour of candidate 10.12.2010 276 23.12.2010 4 1031/12 Sunil Kumar Malik 803225 03.03.1983 WB 71/78845/06 dt.05.01.2006 Jalpaiguri (WB) 27.04.2010 D/L issued in the name of Sunil Kumar Malik S/o Nafe Singh 26.10.2010 D/L/Issued in the name of Sunil Kumar Malik S/o Nafe Singh r/o Uttam Vihar Colony, near new bus stand, Rohtak 05.05.2011 D/L issued in the name of Subrata Tarafder S/o Lt. S. Tarafdr, 04 No.Ghumti, Jalpaiguri 30.09.2011 188 31.12.2011 5 1762/12 103/2011 Diman Singh 800723 25.07.1986 13972/MTR/04 dt.16.10.2004 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid 7.4.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant 10.11.2010 254 22.12.2010
6. 3044/12 345/11 Manoj Kumar 806573 31.07.1982 6474/MTR/05 7.6.2005 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid 17.01.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 28.12.2010 198 18.12.2010
7. 3175/12 1501/2011 Anil Kumar 804120 5.9.1983 20537/Ag/05 27.12.2005 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 29.04.2010 D/L invalid 3.9.2011 Fee for HMV not deposited 10.11.2010 389 29.12.2010 8 3178/12 Mahipal Singh 805198 20.04.1980 C-1339/MTR Dt.31.12.1999 Mathura 30.08.2011 D/L was not issued from L/A Mathura - - 09.3.2012 -
9. 3136/12 337/11 Satyender Kumar 802710 15.12.1978 V- 1146/MTR /99 31.12.1999 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee fro HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 30.08.2011 Not issued in favour of candidate.
30.12.2010 376 28.12.2010
10. 3182/12 1388/11 Parveen Kumar 803452 30.05.1983 12284/Ag/03 20.11.2003 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 29.04.2010 D/L invalid 03.09.2011 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 10.11.2010 428 31.12.2010
11. 3135/12 208/11 Ravi Kumar 811444 28.02.1983 5840/MTR/07 26.04.2007 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial Vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant 23.12.2010 355 27.12.2010 12 3137/12 131/11 Kulbir Singh 804579 10.03.1985 N-217/Ag/06 30.12.2004 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 29.04.2010 D/L invalid 4.2.2011 D/l is not found issued on 31.12.2004 and in this dated (31.12.2004) D/lL Nos.20713-20750 were issued. - do - 391 29.12.2010 13 3095/12 85/2011 Joravar 809425 25.03.1978 8113/Ag/04 dated 19.05.2004 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/l cannot be issued. 29.04.2010 D/L invalid 17.1.2011 D/L issued in favour one Shri Ashish Jain S/o Sh. Vishabh Kr. Jain for LMV instead of candidate. 3.12.2010 311 25.11.2010 14 3357/12 Raj Pal 806390 20.09.1979 10215 dated 27.7.1997 Wokha Nagaland 7.12.2011 No record available said D/L - - 10.4.2012 -
15 3458/12 11/2011 Vikas Yadav 800724 5.7.1980 967/MTR/05 25.1.2005 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 17.1.2011 D/L issued in favour one Shri Sanjay Kr. S/o Shri Jai Singh for LMV instead of candidate 21.09.2011 253 22.12.2010 16 3633/12 340/2011 Manish Kumar 808165 19.05.1985 15307/MTR/07 18.12.2008 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 21.12.2010 221 20.12.2010 17 4067/12 341/2011 Sandeep Kumar 806684 24.7.1983 7406/MTR/03 5.6.2003 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 20.12.2010 195 18.12.2010 18 4077/12 247/2011 Narender Singh 804228 01.07.1982 6425/MTR/03 22.5.2003 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 13.12.2010 247 21.12.2010 19 4085/12 248/2011 Rajesh Kumar 811358 10.07.1981 7445/M/05 30.06.2005 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant 27.12.2010 353 27.12.2010 20 4200/12 301/2011 Surender Singh 804787 17.7.1980 18483/M/03 31.12.2003 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 30.08.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 14.12.2010 174 17.12.2010 21 4217/12 Pramod Kumar 811404 21.8.1983 7352/MTR/03 5.6.2003 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 11.8.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 9.12.2010 170 30.12.2011
22. 4221/12 204/2011 Phool Kumar 809600 2.8.1986 6568/MTR/06 7.6.2006 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 23.12.2010 233 21.12.2010 23 4250/12 Satish Kumar 812246 22.6.1984 6919/MTR/04 20.5.2004 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 11.8.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 9.12.2011 162 30.12.2001
24. 4251/12 201/2011 Kuldeep Malik 803958 23.6.1987 7927/MTR/07 31.5.2007 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 13.12.2010 245 21.12.2010 25 4353/12 251/2011 Azad Singh 808291 18.2.1976 4664/MTR/97 27.12.1997 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 30.08.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 21.12.2010 218 20.12.2010 26 4360/12 294/2011 Jitender Kumar 811376 1.1.1982 6427/MTR/03 22.09.2003 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 30.08.2011 D/L/ not issued to the applicant. 23.12.2010 ?
27 4361/12 200/2011 Sudhir Kr. Malik 802053 16.5.1983 18542/MTR/03 31.12.2003 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 30.08.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 10.12.2010 315 25.12.2010 28 922/2013 344/2011 Anil Kumar 801424 10.5.1987 12214/MTR/07 23.8.2007 Mathura 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid. 30.08.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. 10.12.2010 258 22.12.2010 29 2183/12 Rajesh 806457 15.4.1981 26119/Ag/01 19.03.2007 Agra 07.04.2011 D/L issued in the name of one Shri Mahesh instated of candidate for Motorcycle. - - 14.11.2011 160 30.12.2011 30 3038/12 126/2011 Prahlad Singh 807526 18.08.1983 11508/Ag/03 4.11.2003 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L can not be issued 29.04.2010 D/L invalid 4.2.2011 D/L issued in the name of Pradeep Kumar instated of candidate for M/Cycle 3.12.2010 403 29.12.2010 D/L Verification reports Date of cancellation of candidature FIR U/S 420/468/471 at PS I.P.Estate registered FIR No. & Date 1st Report IInd Report IIIrd Report 31 1566/12 1442/2011 68/2010 Ashok Kr. Yadav 803686 1.4.1984 15237/MTR/07 7.11.2007 Mathura (I) 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. (II) 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid.
(III) 8.11.2010 D/L valid (IV) 17.1.2011 Issued in the name of one Shri Anil Kumar for LMV (V) 3.9.2011 Issued in the name of candidate. VI 28.12.2011 D/L issued in the name of one Shri Anil Kumar for LMV (VII) 25.04.2013 D/L issued in the name of one Shri Anil Kumar for LMV 27.1.2011 265 23.12.2010 32 3629/12 1355/2011 Sandeep Singh 809128 15.12.1985 974/Ag/07 31.12.2003 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 29.04.2010 D/L Invalid 3.9.2011 Fee for D/L not deposited 3.12.2010 411 30.12.2010 33 1538/12 Sanjeet Kumar 801371 15.5.1985 208790/MS (A) 16.10.2006 Imphal 30.04.2011 It was found forged and take D/L 21.10.2011 D/L found genuine 6.2.2012 D/L is issued in the name of one Ms. Geetabli Devi D/o Bhino Singh for two wheeler & LMV. 1.03.2012 54 30.03.2012 34 3623/12 130/2011 Pawan 807762 2.9.1984 3898/MTR/06 22.3.2006 Mathura (I) 03.05.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. (II) 07.06.2010 Due to not depositing fee, D/L for driving commercial vehicle is not valid (III) 07.04.2011 D/L not issued to the applicant. (IV) 3.9.2011 D/L issued in the name of applicant.(V) 28.12.2011 D?l is issued in the name of one Sh.Khillu Khan instead of applicant..
15.12.2010 207 19.12.2010 35 3183/12 1472/2011 Rishi Pal 807789 2.11.1984 7001/Ag/07 31.12.2002 Agra 09.04.2010 Fee for HMV not deposited and without depositing fee D/L cannot be issued. 29.04.2010 D/L invalid. 3.9.2011 Fee for HMV not deposited 3.12.2010 406 30.12.2010
13. As far as the plea of applicant in OA 1566/2012 (A.K.Yadav) regarding his licence number being 15237/MTR/07 and not 15337/MTR/07 is concerned, nothing turn on the same for the simple reason that in the report given by the Assistant Divisional Transport Officer, Mathura vide letter No. 1755/licence verification/2011 dated 28.12.2011 placed by the applicant himself on record at page 71 of the paper book ( reproduced hereinabove), the licence no.15337/MTR/07 is issued in the name of Shri Satendra Chaturvedi s/o Shri S.P.Chaturvedi and licence no.15237/MTR/07 has been issued in the name of Shri Anil Kumar s/o Shri Mehtab Singh. Thus, apparently none of the licences have been issued in the name of applicant.
14. Somehow identical issue came up for consideration before the Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 7722/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.9209/2006) with Civil Appeal No. 7723/2011 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.8617/2006), Arshad Jamil Vs. State of Uttarkhand & Ors. In the said case, the appellant was appointed as Civil Judge (Junior Division) on probation for a period of two years. The appointment letter was issued, subject to verification of his character and report of health examination being found satisfactory for the judicial service. After he submitted his joining report, he was posted as Civil Judge (Junior Division) at Purola, Utarkashi, Uttrakhand and assumed charge on 22.09.2003. The District Magistrate,Haridwar received a letter from the Secretary, Public Service Commission, Uttaranchal, Haridwar informing him that a complaint had been received by the Commission against the appellant wherein, it was complained that Arshad Jamil is a permanent resident of House No.156, Janshath House, Ansari Road,District-Muzaffarnagar and his name appeared at Sl. No. 862 of part No.141 of Electoral list of constituency no.408 of Muzaffarnagar Legislative Assembly and that he was a member of the Muzaffarnagar Bar Association. In terms of the said letter sent on 15.09.2003, the District Magistrate was requested to inform the Commission about the validity of the caste certificate of OBC issued to the appellant on 29.06.2002 so that the Commission could take a decision on the aforesaid complaint. Pursuant to the aforementioned letter, an enquiry was conducted and the Tehsildar, Roorkee submitted a report dated 09.07.2003, confirming that the appellant belongs to OBC in Uttaranchal. In the said report, it was also stated that prior to his stay in Roorkee, the appellant was residing in Muzaffarnagar. As per the report that the appellant had been residing in Roorkee for the last twelve years since his name appeared in the Municipality records as tenant. The report also confirmed that the appellant was residing at Roorkee from 3.06.1998 to 2003 as a resident of old house no.24 and new number 7, Sheikhpuri, Roorkee, Haridwar. A police report was also submitted on 8.12.2003 that the appellant had been residing at Roorkee since 1991. A letter was sent by the District Magistrate to the Principal Secretary, Social Welfare Department, Uttaranchal Government stating that the jurisdiction to cancel the caste certificate lies with the State Government and not with him. A show cause notice was issued to the appellant by the Chief Secretary, Government of Uttaranchal. In the show cause notice it was mentioned that one Shri Abdul Kareem had made a complaint alleging that the appellant had succeeded in getting appointment in the Uttaranchal State Judicial Service on the basis of a fake caste and residence certificate in collusion with the Tehsildar of Roorkee. In the notice it was also mentioned that inquiry had been made by the District Magistrate, Haridwar, who had informed the State Government that the appellant was a permanent resident of District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh but he had produced a certificate of OBC showing himself to be a permanent resident of Uttaranchal and therefore, he was not entitled to get the benefit of OBC Caste in Uttarankhand, as he was a permanent resident of Uttar Pradesh. He was, therefore, asked to show cause notice as to why his appointment in the judicial service should not be cancelled for the aforementioned reason. The appellant submitted his reply to the aforesaid show cause notice on 20.07.2004. On consideration of reply of the appellant, another show cause notice had been issued to him and on consideration of the show cause notice and reply thereto, it was viewed that the appellant was born in district Muzaffarnagar, UP and had also completed his education there. In view of the aforementioned facts, the appointment of the appellant was terminated vide order dated 18.12.2004. Another order came to be issued by the Tehsildar, Roorkee whereby the caste certificate issued to the appellant on 29.06.2002 was cancelled. The appellant filed a Writ Petition challenging the legality and validity of the aforesaid order. The said petition was registered as Writ Petition (Civil) no. 448/2005. The petition was allowed by the Uttrakhand High Court quashing the order of cancellation of caste certificate on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice. The Tehsildar was given liberty to issue notice to the appellant to enable him to file his objections against the proposal to cancel the caste certificate. After due procedure, the Tehsildar issued another order dated 1.09.2005 canceling the caste certificate of the appellant. Meanwhile, the appellant filed Writ Petition No.413/2005 challenging the order of his termination dated 18.12.2004. He also filed another petition being Writ Petition No.408/2006 challenging the order of cancellation of his caste certificate. The High Court allowed the writ petition and directed reinstatement of the appellant with continuity of service without any break. The Writ Petition No.408/2006 was taken up for final hearing by the High Court and was dismissed on 13.08.2008. Thus, the two Civil Appeals were preferred before the Honble Supreme Court. In the said appeals, the Honble Supreme Court viewed that even though the appellant was ordinarily a resident of Roorkee, but once it could be revealed that he was permanent resident of UP, there was no infirmity in the order of cancellation of his caste certificate. In the said case, it could also be viewed that the order passed by the Tehsildar with detailed reasons needed to be accepted. For easy reference, para 34 to 38 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
34. In view of such authentic and sufficient documentary evidence on record to reject the claim of the appellant that he was an ordinarily resident of Roorkee, the findings recorded by the Tehsildar, Roorkee in his order dated 02.03.2005 and also those recorded by the High Court cannot be sought to be in any manner arbitrary, illegal or irrational.
35. In the case of Action Committee on Issue of Caste Certificate to SC and ST in the State of Maharashtra and Anr. v. Union of India & Anr. reported in (1994) 5 SCC 244 a Constitution Bench of this Court considered the issue regarding a person belonging to SC/ST in relation to his original State of which he is a permanent or ordinary resident. While examining the said issue it was held that such a person who belongs to SC/ST in one State of which he is a permanent or ordinary resident cannot deem to belong to SC/ST in relation to another State on his migration to that State for the purpose of employment, education, etc. The aforesaid conclusions were arrived at by the Constitution Bench of this Court after referring to the Government order wherein the expression "ordinary residence" came to be explained as residence which is not for the purpose of service, employment, education, confinement in jail, etc., and in short it means permanent and not a temporary residence. The Constitution Bench also referred to Section 20 of the Representation of Peoples Act, that so far as the Government of India is concerned, it has firmly held the view that a Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe person who migrates from the State of his origin to another State in search of employment or for education purposes or the like, cannot be treated as a person belonging to the Scheduled Caste/Scheduled Tribe of the State to which he migrates and hence he cannot claim benefit as such in the latter State.
36. The order which is passed by the Tehsildar whereby he had finally cancelled the caste certificate of the appellant and which is the impugned order under challenge in the writ petition, was a detailed order giving cogent reasons for the decision rendered. The said order cannot be termed as an order passed by him at anybody's behest or at the dictation of his superior officer. The aforesaid order was passed independently exercising his own independent mind and upon detailed examination of the records. Therefore, the submission that the same was passed at the dictation of the higher authority or that the same was passed for extraneous consideration is baseless and without any merit.
37. The appellant has failed to prove and establish that he is an ordinary resident of Roorkee in the year 2002 when he made an application for his appointment to the post of Civil Judge [Junior Division] and also when he applied for and obtained the caste certificate. The caste certificate was initially issued to him without making a proper and detailed inquiry, and the Tehsildar proceeded on the basis of certain observation of two persons. A caste certificate is a very important and substantial document and, therefore, while granting the same a proper inquiry is required to be made by the Tehsildar which appears to have been not done in the present case, and the Tehsildar issued the said caste certificate to the appellant in a perfunctory manner and therefore, the same was cancelled by a detailed order giving cogent and valid reasons thereof.
38. Consequently, we find no infirmity in the judgment and order dated 13.08.2008, in writ petition no. 408 of 2006 passed by the High Court, upholding the order of the Tehsildar canceling the caste certificate of the appellant. The appeal filed by the appellant against the order dated 13.8.2008 of the High Court fails.
15. In the backdrop of the aforementioned view taken by the Honble Supreme Court, we have no hesitation in arriving at the conclusion that once a doubt was raised regarding validity of the driving licences of the applicants, the final report given by the concerned authority after due deliberation has to be relied upon. Thus, once the ultimate view of the concerned licencing authorities made available to Delhi Police was that the licences were invalid, the Delhi Police authorities committed no error in accepting the same.
16. To decide the issue whether the respondents disregarded the principle of natural justice, it may be apposite to refer to the development of events in each of the cases:
OA 2920/2011(Rajnikant Vs. The Commr of Police)
17. The District and Transport Officer, District Churachandpur, Manipur was requested to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of the applicant and the said authority vide its letter No.10 (21)/DTO/CCP/07 dated 31.03.2010 informed that the driving licence was not found issued in the record of their office and was declared as fabricated one. A notice no.8022/Rectt.Cell (AC-III)/PHQ dated 13.05.2010 to show cause as to why his candidature for the post of Constable (Driver) should not be cancelled, was issued to applicant. A criminal case was also registered against him vide FIR no.79/2010 dated 3.06.2010 for offences u/s 420/468/471 at PS/ I.P.Estate, Delhi. On 25.05.2010, the Delhi Police received another verification report dated 19.05.2010 from DTO, Churachandpur, Manipur by post. Thus, the respondents cancelled the candidature of the applicant after due verification and giving opportunity to him to show cause. Nevertheless, by a communication dated 22.10.2012, the District Transport Officer, Churachandpur, Manipur (Annexure D to the rejoinder), the Assistant Commissioner of Police, Anti Auto Theft Squad, Crime Branch, Malviya Nagar, Delhi was informed that the office of the DTO, Churachandpur, Manipur had issued driving licence bearing no.784997/Ch. to the applicant. The said letter was issued during the pendency of the present OA. The said letter placed on record by the applicant does not strengthen his case in any manner for the simple reason that in para 4.7 of the OA, he himself has claimed that the driving licence possessed by him was DL No.76828/CH. Thus, before considering the bonafide of the candidature of the applicant, the respondents were to examine the validity of the said driving licence. For easy reference the contents of para 4.7 of the OA are extracted hereinbelow:-
4.7. That the department passed an order dated 16.9.2010 rejecting the candidature of the applicant by an absolute non speaking and mechanical order. That the respondent has mentioned with the body of cancellation of candidature order that a verification report dated 19.5.2010 was received in Police hdqrs. on 25.5.10 through post from DTO/Churachandpur, Manipur mentioning that Dl No-76828/CH is found genuinine and correct as per record ( relied by the department in the cancellation of candidature order). It is established fact that even the Transport Office at Manipur gave positive report about the genuinity and authenticity about the verification of the licence of the applicant vide its report dated 19.05.10 and thus any further enquiry of licence is uncalled for as the records of the applicant with the RTO Manipur were same even at the time of second inquiry i.e. dated 19.5.2010 thus causing great prejudice to the applicant. The authentication of issuance of different licences to the applicant by the office of DTO, Churachandpur, Manipur only strengthened the doubt or bonafide of both licences and the verification report.
OA 1581/2012 ( Krishan Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police)
18. On his provisional selection, a copy of HTV driving licence submitted by the applicant in OA No.1581/2012, namely, Krishan Kumar issued from the Licencing Authority, Agra was sent to DCP/Provisioning and Logistics for verification. The Assistant Regional Transport Officer (ARTO) vide its letters dated 9.04.2010 and 29.04.2010 intimated that on the date of issue/ endorsement of driving licence, no fee was deposited and without depositing the fee, licence could not have been issued and the address given in the driving licence was also found incomplete/incorrect. Accordingly, a notice was given to the applicant asking him to show-cause as to why his candidature could not be cancelled. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice. Having considered his reply and the report received from the Licencing Authority, the competent authority passed the order dated 3.12.2010 canceling the candidature of the applicant. The said order was challenged by the applicant before this Tribunal in OA 82/2011. Pursuant to an interim order dated 11.01.2011 in the said OA, the ACP, Crime Branch was detailed to verify the genuineness of the driving licence of the applicant, who submitted his report on 18.01.2011 along with verification report dated 17.01.2011 issued by ARTO (Admn.) Agra Region, Agra, which revealed that driving licence no. 7322/AG/06 dated 25.04.2006 (actual date of issue 22.06.2006) had been issued in the name of Shri Mahender Meena, s/o of Shri C.S.Meena, R/o G-194/A, South Railway Colony, Agra Cantt., Agra. The report was presented before the Tribunal. Finally the Tribunal disposed of the OA along with batch of OAs in terms of order dated 18.05.20.11 directing the respondents to issue fresh show cause notice to the candidates based on the facts of each case so that they could get opportunity to reply and then to pass a speaking order based on cogent reasons. Accordingly, the respondents No.1 and 2 issued a notice dated 29.06.2011. The applicant submitted his reply. Having considered the report of Licencing Authority, Agra, verification report of ACP, Crime Branch, Delhi and written/oral reply of the applicant, the DCP (Establishment) passed the order dated 20.09.2011 canceling the candidature of the applicant. In the said order, it has been viewed that the driving licence no. 7322/AG/06 dated 25.04.2006 was found registered in the name of Shri Mahender Meena S/o Shri C.S.Meena, resident of G-194/A, South Railway Colony, Agra Cantt., Agra for motorcycle + LMV. Assailing the said order and the show cause notice, the applicant has filed the present OA.
OA 1582/2012 ( Ashish Vs. The Comm. of Police )
19. The facts of the case involved in OA 1582/2012 are more or less similar to those in OA no. 1581/2012 ( Krishan Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police). In the said case, having considered the report of the ACP, Crime Branch, submissions of the applicant and the verification report dated 30.08.2011 issued by ARTO (Admn.), Mathura which revealed that HTV driving licence no. 12041/M/06 dated 6.10.2006 had not been issued in the name of applicant, the concerned authority passed order dated 14.12.2011 canceling the candidature of the applicant.
OA 1762/2012 ( Diman Singh Vs. The Comm. of Police)
20. Having considered the report dated 7.04.2011 issued by the ARTO (Admn), Mathura and the reply given by the applicant to the show cause notice dated 29.06.2011, the concerned authority found that the driving licence no. 13972/MTR/04 dated 16.10.2004 had not been issued in the name of the applicant.
OA 2183/2012 (Rajesh Vs. The Comm. of Police)
21. In OA no. 2183/2012 also, having given show cause notice to the applicant and considered his reply, the concerned authority found that the HTV driving licence no.26119/Ag/01 dated 9.03.2007 had not been issued in the name of the applicant (Rajesh Kumar) and had been issued in the name of Shri Mahesh Kumar s/o Shri Phool Singh R/o Peeli Pokhar, Agra for motorcycle + LMV (private) OA 3038/2012 ( Parhlad Vs. The Comm. of Police)
22. In OA No.3038/2012 (Parhlad Vs. The Commissioner of Police) also, the applicant was served with a show cause notice and only after considering his reply to the show cause notice and the verification report dated 4.02.2011 issued by ARTO (Admn) Agra Region, Agra, it was found that the driving licence no.11508/AG/03 dated 4.11.2003 (actual date of issue 27.08.2003) was registered in the name of Shri Pardeep Kumar S/o Shri Mahinder Singh, R/o 26/262, Katra Gadariyan, Agra for motorcycle and had not been issued to the applicant.
OA 3044/2012 ( Manoj Kumar Vs. The Comm. Of Police)
23. The applicant in OA 3044/2012, namely, Shri Manoj Kumar was given first show cause notice on 21.07.2010 and in view of the adverse report received from the Licencing Authority, Mathura, his candidature was cancelled. After the order passed by the Tribunal in OA 345/2011, he was given a fresh show cause notice dated 6.07.2011. On consideration of the report of the ACP, Crime Branch and reply given by the applicant, the concerned authority viewed that the licence possessed by the applicant was not valid.
24. The factual position in OA Nos. 3175/2012 (Anil Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3182/2012 (Praveen Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3183/2012 (Rishi Pal Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3135/2012 (Ravi Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3136/2012 (Satyender Singh Vs. The Comm. Of Police), 3137/2012 (Kulbir Singh Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3095/2012 (Joravar Singh Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3458/2012 (Vikas Yadav Vs. The Comm. of Police), 3633/2012 (Manish Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police), 4077/2012 (Narender Singh Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4085/2012 (Rajesh Kumar Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4200/2012 (Surender Singh Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4221/2012 (Phool Kumar Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4251/2012 (Kuldeep Malik Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4353/2012 (Azad Singh Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4360/2012 (Jitender Kumar Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 4361/2012 (Sudhir Kumar Malik Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors), 922/2013 (Anil Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police and Ors), 3623/2012 (Pawan Kumar Vs. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police and Ors), 3629/2012 (Sandeep Singh Vs. Govt. of NCTD through Commissioner of Police and Ors), OA 4067/2012 (Sandeep Kumar Vs. UOI through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors) and 1566/2012 (A.K. Yadav Vs. The Comm. of Police), are more or less identical to those in OA 3044/2012 (Manoj Kumar Vs. The Comm. of Police) as in all the said cases, show cause notices were issued to the applicants pursuant to the order dated 18.05.2011 passed by this Tribunal on the basis of the information collected by the ACP (Crime Branch) and after consideration of the reply to show cause submitted by the applicant, it could be viewed that the licence in question had not been validly issued in the name of applicants for one reason or the other. In brief, in all the cases, action was taken after giving a show cause notice to the applicants and after conducting verification through the ACP (Crime Branch).
25. In the case of Rajpal Vs. Govt. of NCT through the Commissioner of Police and Ors. (OA 3357/2012), a copy of his HTV driving licence was got verified from the Licencing Authority, Narnaul, Haryana. The verification report dated 5.03.2010 issued by the said authority revealed that the driving licence no.03/R/04 was issued on the basis of old driving licence No.10215/NW issued by the Licencing Authority, Wokha, Nagaland dated 27.07.1997. Subsequently, the licence was got verified from the Licencing Authority, Wokha, Nagaland. The verification report dated 07.12.2011 received from the DCP/Crime along with the report of the Licencing Authority, Wokha, Nagaland revealed that no record of issuance of any such driving licence was available in the office. On scrutiny of the verification report, it was found that the applicant was not in possession of any valid and genuine driving licence at the time of submitting application for the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. Accordingly, a show cause notice dated 21.02.2012 was served upon him as to why his candidature should not be cancelled. Having considered the report of the Licencing Authority, Wokha, Nagaland and the stand taken by the applicant, the DCP (Estt) passed order dated 10.04.2012 canceling the candidature of the applicant. The report of verification placed by the applicant on record as annexure A-9 reads as under:-
Sl.No. Name of Bearer D/L No. Remarks
1. Sh.Rajpal S/o Sh.Satyaveer 10215/NW/Prof/07 dated 28.7.97 No record available in the office.
2. Sh.Suchnder S/o Sh.Subhash Kumar 27447/NW/Prof/07 dated 15.11.07 Verfied and found correct.
26. In OA 1031/2012 (Sunil Kumar Malik Vs. The Comm. of Police), a copy of HTV driving licence submitted by the applicant was sent to the DCP (Crime) who submitted his report on 15.06.2011 along with verification report dated 5.05.2011 issued by the Licencing Authority, Jalpaiguri, West Bengal. From the report, it could be revealed that the licence, particulars of which were mentioned by the applicant in his application, was issued in the name of Subrata Tarafder s/o Lt.Shri S.Tarafder, r/o 4 No. Gumti, Jaipaiguri. In the circumstances, a show cause notice dated 5.08.2011 was served upon the applicant. In his reply to the show cause notice, the applicant claimed to have a different licence issued in his name. According to him, the licence issued to him was not WB-71/78845/06 but was WB-71/79914/07, which was genuine. In fact, the respondents were concerned with particulars of the licence submitted by the applicant along with his application form. Besides, the claim of the applicant that another licence with different particulars was possessed by him, could only strengthen the doubt regarding the practice of procurement/issuance of driving licences. Nevertheless, finding the driving licence particulars of which were mentioned by the applicant in para 5 of the application form to be incorrect, the competent authority issued order canceling his candidature. Apparently, before canceling his candidature, the applicant was served with a show cause notice.
27. The facts of OA 2912/2012 (Sanjeet Kumar Vs. The Commr. of Police) are little peculiar. In the said case, the verification report dated 7.12.2011 revealed that the driving licence no.208790/MS(A) dated 16.10.2006, particulars of which were mentioned in para 5 of the application form, was issued in the name of Geetabli Devi d/o Bhino Singh, Hooban Marak for 2 wheeler/LMV only. In letter dated 4.10.2012 addressed to the Section Officer (J-II) of the Principal Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal, it is mentioned that the driving licence no.208790/MS(A) was found genuine. The said letter is extracted hereinbelow:
To Section Officer (J-II) For Principal Registrar Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench New Delhi Subject: Notice.
Honble Sir, With due respect, I the undersigned have the honour to acknowledge receipt of Tribunal Notice of dated 6th of Sept 2012 regarding appearance before the Bench of the Tribunal relating to Original Application No.2912/2012 on 23/10/2012 at 10:30 a.m. In this regard, I, the undersigned, regretted to inform you that in our first verification of the D/Licence No. 208790/MS(A) we had reported the driving licence in question as forged due to indistinct photo copy of the said driving licence which was manually prepared besides the concerned register/record was not traceable/misplaced due to shifting of room for further verification or tally with that of office record. It was a great mistake on the part of the office for reporting base on a photo copy only. However, on production of the original D/Licence and after due re-verification/ re-checked with the official records, it was found genuine and the same was valid till 13-10-2012.
Further, I humbly pray your Honble to pardon me for appearing before the Bench of the Tribunal on 23/10/2012 as the State Government has assigned this office to collect huge amount of Revenue pertaining to vehicle taxes during the ending quarter due to the prevailing financial crises faced by the State Government.
In the light of the above facts and circumstances stated above, I am not in a position to leave my headquarter for a time being. It is therefore, once again prayed your Honble to pardon me in appearing in the Bench of Tribunal till the revenue target set by the Govt. in respect of this office is achieved.
Yours faithfully, Sd/-
District Transport Officer Imphal West Nevertheless, in the said case also, having issued show cause notice to the applicant and on consideration of his reply, the respondents found that the licence particulars of which were mentioned in para 5 of the application form was not validly issued, thus cancelled his candidature.
28. Also in 4250/2012 (Satish Kumar Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors.), after serving the show cause notice upon the applicant and giving opportunity of hearing, the concerned authority found that HTV driving licence no. 6919/MTR/04 dated 20.05.2004 was not issued in the name of the applicant. In fact, in the said case, on the basis of driving licence no. 6919/MTR/04 dated 20.05.2004 issued by the Licencing Authority, Mathura, the applicant procured another driving licence no.216/OTH/M/08 from the Licencing Authority Meham, Rohtak on 13.06.2008.
29. Similarly in OA No 4217/2012 (Parmod Kumar Vs. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs and Ors) and OA No. 3178/2012 (Mahi Pal Vs. The Comm. of Police), the candidature of the applicants was cancelled after serving upon them a show cause notice. In both the cases, the competent authority viewed that the applicants did not possess the valid driving licence at the time of their appointment.
30. The principle of natural justice is a relative concept. Its application depends upon the cause, nature and the consequence of the action /decision to be taken in a particular case. There may be a case, where a person is charged for committing misconduct. In such a case, it is essential to apprise him about the allegation against him and to give him adequate opportunity to prove the allegation incorrect. In such proceedings, refusal to take any such step or not allowing the delinquent to take the steps essential for his defence in the proceedings would be termed as violative of the principles of natural justice. However, in a case where an employee is considered unfit to be retained in service, the communication or appraisal of the basis of unsuitability/unfitness of the concerned employee would satisfy the requirement of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, admittedly the possession of heavy driving licence was one of the eligibility conditions for appointment to the post of Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police. On verification, the heavy driving licences, particulars of which were mentioned by the applicants in their application form were found invalid. Thus, the applicants were informed that in view of the driving licence claimed to be possessed by them being found invalid, their candidature was liable to be cancelled. In reply to the show cause notice, the applicants tried to project that the licences were valid. It was not open for the recruiting department to pronounce on the validity of the licence or to accept the plea taken by the applicants. These were Licencing Authorities/Regional Transport Officers who could comment upon the validity of the licences and once the said authority reported that licences were invalid, the recruiting agency had no other option, but to accept the said report. Though, as has been noticed hereinabove, there were conflicting reports from the licencing authorities but the authorities were to accept the latest report given after due verification. In the present case, the recruiting department (Delhi Police) had accepted said report. In our view, before cancelling the candidature of the applicants, the respondents followed the required degree of principles of natural justice. In Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors Vs. Kamini and Ors (Appeal (Civil) 1970/2007 decided on 16.04.2007), the Honble Supreme Court viewed that the Division Bench of High Court was not right in applying litmus test of admission of the first respondent by Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai, as the controversy before the Court, was, whether the first respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. In the said case, when the requirement to be eligible for the post in question was Honours degree in B.SC with Zoology and the respondent had cleared B.Sc. Honours with Chemistry, it could not be said that he was eligible to the post having requisite educational qualifications. In the circumstances, the Honble Supreme Court viewed that by not treating her eligible for the post in question, the Commission had not committed any illegality. In the said case, it was not considered essential to conduct a detailed enquiry into the matter before cancellation of candidature. It was also viewed that even if in 1993, some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible and the first respondent could not insist that he should also have been treated eligible, as there is no negative principle of equality. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:-
When a representation was made by the first respondent that cancellation of her candidature was not proper and that the decision should be reconsidered by the Commission, the Commission though it fit to look into her grievance and an Export Committee was appointed. The Expert Committee considered the question and submitted a report on November 24,2002, inter alia, stating that in its considered opinion, a student would be called a Graduate in the subject if he/she has Honours in the subject at the Graduate level, meaning thereby that it must be the principal subject. In our opinion, such a decision could not be said to be contrary to law. Again, it is well settled that in the field of education, a Court of Law cannot act as an expert. Normally, therefore, whether or not a student/candidate possesses requisite qualifications should better be left to educational institutions (vide University of Mysore v. Govinda Rao, (1964) 4 SCR 576: AIR 1965 SC 591). This is particularly so when it is supported by an Expert Committee. The Expert Committee considered the matter and observed that a person can be said to be Honours in the subject if at the Graduate leve, he/she studies such subject as the principal subject having eight papers and not a subsidiary, optional or side subject having two papers. Such a decision, in our judgment, cannot be termed arbitrary or otherwise objectionable. The learned Single Judge, in our opinion, was, therefore, right in dismissing the petition relying upon the Report of the Committee and in upholding the objection of the Commission. The Division Bench was in error in ignoring the well considered report of the Expert Committee and in setting aside the decision of the learned Single Judge. The Division Bench, while allowing the appeal, observed that the litmus test was the admission granted to the first respondent by the Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. According to the Division Bench, if the first respondent did not possess Bachelor of Science Degree with Zoology, the Institute would not have admitted her to the said course. The Division Bench observed that that not only the first respondent was admitted to the said course, she had passed it with flying colours. In our opinion, the Division Bench was not right in applying litmus test of admission of the first respondent by Central Institute of Fisheries Education, Mumbai. The controversy before the Court was whether the first respondent was eligible for the post of District Fisheries Officer, Class II. The correct test, therefore, was not admission by Mumbai Institution. If the requirement was of Honours in B.Sc with Zoology and if the first respondent had cleared B.Sc Honours with Chemistry, it could not be said that she was eligible to the post having requisite educational qualifications. By not treating her eligible, therefore, the Commission had not committed any illegality.
With regard to two instances cited by the first respondent in her counter affidavit before this Court, it is sufficient to state that the Letters Patent Appeal was not allowed by the allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court on that ground. Even otherwise, the learned counsel for the appellant-Commission is right in submitting that the cases related to remote past in 1993. He further stated that the advertisement was issued in 1999, several other candidates who had not obtained Degree of B.Sc (Honours) with Zoology as principal subject had applied and all of them have been treated ineligible and were not called for interview.
In our opinion, the submission of the learned counsel for the Commission is well founded and must be accepted. Therefore, even if in 1993, some ineligible candidates were wrongly treated as eligible, the first respondent cannot insist that she also must be treated eligible though she is ineligible. In our considered opinion, such an action cannot give rise to equality clause, such an action cannot give rise to equality clause enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution. It is well settled and needs no authority that misconstruction of a provision of law in one case does not give rise to a similar misconstruction in other cases on the basis of doctrine of equality. An illegality cannot be allowed to be perpetuated under the so-called equality doctrine. That is not the sweep of Article 14. Even that contention, therefore, has not impressed us.
31. In the case of R. Vishwanatha Pillai Vs. State of Kerala & ors., [Appeal (Civil) No.89/2004] decided on 7.01.2004, it could be viewed that if the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 can possibly flow from such a tainted force. In the said case, the appellant had obtained appointment in service on the basis that he belongs to SC community. When it was found that he did not belong to SC community, then the very basis of his appointment had been taken away. His appointment was considered as no appointment in the eyes of law. The Honble Supreme Court viewed that unless the appellant could lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment, he could not claim the constitutional guarantee given under Article 311 of the Constitution. Since the appellant had got appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate, he could not be considered to be a person who holds the civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the judgment is extracted hereinbelow:
This apart, the appellant obtained the appointment in the service on the basis that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste Community. When it was found by the Scrutiny Committee that he did not belong to the Scheduled Caste Community, then the very basis of his appointment was taken away. His appointment was no appointment in the eyes of law. He cannot claim a right to the post as he had ursurped the post meant for a reserved candidate by playing a fraud and producing a false caste certificate. Unless the appellant can lay a claim to the post on the basis of his appointment he cannot claim he constitutional guarantee given under the Article 311 of the Constitution. As he had obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate he cannot be considered to be a person who holds a post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of Indian. Finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee that the appellant got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate has become final. The position, therefore, is that the appellant has usurped the post which should have gone to a member of the Scheduled Caste. In view of the finding recorded by the Scrutiny Committee and upheld upto this Court he has disqualified himself to hold the post. Appointment was void from its inception. It cannot be said that the said void appointment would enable the appellant to claim that he was holding a civil post within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. As appellant had obtained the appointment by playing a fraud he cannot be allowed to take advantage of his own fraud in entering the service and claim that he was holder of the post entitled to be dealt with in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India or the Rules framed thereunder/ Where an appointment in a service has been acquired by practicing fraud or deceit such an appointment is no appointment in law, in service and in such a situation Article 311 of the Constitution is not attracted at all.
In Ishwar Dayal Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 1987 Lab. I.C. 390, the Division Bench of the Patna High Court examined the point as to whether a person who obtained the appointment on the basis of a false caste certificate was entitled to the protection of Article 311 of the Constitution. In the said case the employee had obtained appointment by producing a caste certificate that he belonged to a Scheduled Caste community which later on was found to be false. His appointment was cancelled. It was contended by the employee that the cancellation of his appointment amounted to removal from service within the meaning of Article 311 of the Constitution and therefore void. It was contended that he could not be terminated from service without holding departmental inquiry as provided under the Rules. Dealing with the above contention, the High Court held that if the very appointment to the civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 of the Constitution can possibly flow. It was held:-
If the very appointment to civil post is vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality, it would necessarily follow that no constitutional rights under Article 311 can possible flow from such a tainted force. In such a situation, the question is whether the person concerned is at all a civil servant of the Union or the State and if he is not validly so, then the issue remains outside the purview of Art. 311. If the very entry or the crossing of the threshold into the arena of the civil service of the State or the Union is put in issue and door is barred against him, the cloak of protection under Art. 311 is not attracted. The point was again examined by a Full Bench of the Patna High Court in Rita Mishra Vs. Director, Primary Educatio, Bihar, AIR 1988 Patna 26. The question posed before the Full Bench was whether a public servant was entitled to payment of salary to him for the work done despite the fact that his letter of appointment was forged, fraudulent or illegal. The Full Bench held:
13. It is manifest from the above that the rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Therefore, these rights including the right to salary, spring from a valid and legal appointment to the post. Once it is found that the very appointment is illegal and is non est in the eye of law, no statutory entitlement for salary or consequential rights of pension and other monetary benefits can arise. In particular, if the very appointment is rested on forgery, no statutory right can flow it. We agree with the view taken by the Patna High Court in the aforesaid cases.
It was then contended by Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned senior counsel for the appellant that since the appellant has rendered about 27 years of service the order of dismissal be substituted by an order of compulsory retirement or removal from service to protect the pensionary benefits of the appellant. We do not find any substance in this submission, as well. The rights to salary, pension and other service benefits are entirely statutory in nature in public service. Appellant obtained the appointment against a post meant for a reserved candidate by producing a false caste certificate and by playing a fraud. His appointment to the post was void and non est in the eyes of law. The right to salary or pension after retirement flow from a valid and legal appointment. The consequential right of pension and monetary benefits can be given only if the appointment was valid and legal. Such benefits cannot be given in a case where the appointment was found to have been obtained fraudulently and rested on false caste certificate. A person who entered the service by producing a false caste certificate and obtained appointment for the post meant for Scheduled Caste thus depriving the genuine Scheduled Caste of appointment to that post does not deserve any sympathy or indulgence of this Court. A person who seeks equity must come with clean hands. He, who comes to the Court with false claims, cannot plead equity nor the Court would be justified to exercise equity jurisdiction in his favour. A person who seeks equity must act in a fair and equitable manner. Equity jurisdiction cannot be exercised in the case of a person who got the appointment on the basis of false caste certificate by playing a fraud. No sympathy and equitable consideration can come to his rescue. We are of the view that equity or compassion cannot be allowed to bend the arms of law in a case where an individual acquired a status by practicing fraud.
32. In Purushottam Lal Das & others Vs. The State of Bihar & others, [Appeal (Civil) No.4386/2006], the Honble Supreme Court could upheld the reversion of the applicant after issuance of show cause notice. Relevant excerpts of the judgment read as under:
Except some of the appellants who were Class IV employees remaining appellants were holding Class III posts, that is, Basic Health Workers. They were promoted to the post of Clerk in the year 1992. Subsequently, an aduit team raised objection to the said promotions expressing the view that the appellants could not have been promoted. On the basis of the audit report action was taken. State Government was of the view that promotions granted were illegal and accordingly the appellants were reverted to the original post held by each one of them. Being aggrieved by the said order, some of the appellants moved the High Court which quashed the orders on the ground that adequate opportunity was not granted to show cause before the action was taken. Thereafter, show cause notices were issued to which the appellants responded. Ultimately they were reverted to the original post held by each and direction was given to recover the excess amounts which had been paid. Writ petitions were filed challenging the orders in that regard. In cash case learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition. As noted above the Letters Patent Appeals were also dismissed.
xxx xxx xxx The reasons which weighed by the respondent-State to hold that the promotion was illegal does not suffer form any infirmity. Class III employees could not have been promoted as they belong to the technical cadre and the promotional posts related to non-technical cadre. That apart the Class III employees were already holding Class III post and, therefore, there was no question of promotion to the same class. So far as class IV employees are concerned, their promotion was also not considered in terms of statutory provision. The quota of promotion to Class III from Class IV is fixed and the procedure is provided for deciding the question of promotion. The promotions were granted without placing their cases before the Establishment Committee and the Committee which accorded approval was not properly constituted, and the reservation policy was not followed and promotions were given without adopting the procedure relating to advertisement. The High Court also noted that the appointments were made by the Civil Surgeon though a band had been imposed by the State Government on appointments. Therefore, the order of reservation in each case cannot be faulted.
xxx xxx xxx While, therefore, not accepting the challenge to the orders of reversion on the peculiar circumstances noticed, we direct that no recovery shall be made from the amounts already paid in respect of the promotional posts. However, no arrears or other financial benefits shall be granted in respect of the concerned period.
33. In Ram Preeti Yadav Vs. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education and others, (2003) 8 SCC 311, the Honble Supreme Court viewed that no Court in the land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. Para 14 of the judgment reads as under:
14. I cannot accede to this argument for a moment. In no Court in this land will allow a person to keep an advantage which he has obtained by fraud. No judgment of a Court, no order of a minister, can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything. The court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved; but once it is proved it vitiates judgments, contracts and all transactions whatsoever. In para 20 of the judgment, it could be viewed that in the case of mass copying, the principles of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. For easy reference, the said para is extracted hereinbelow:
20. As regards the submission of the learned counsel to the effect that the first respondent should be directed to give an opportunity of hearing to Respondent 3 at this stage cannot be acceded to. As noticed hereinbefore, it is the positive case of the first respondent that an opportunity of hearing had been given to him by the first respondent. Secondly, in a case of mass copying the principles of natural justice need not be strictly complied with. In State of T.N. and others Vs. A. Gurusamy, (1997) 3 SCC 542, the Honble Supreme Court viewed that before cancellation of a certificate, the District Collector need not follow the procedure prescribed under Section 9 of the CPC or the procedure to be followed in an inquiry. An opportunity given to the effected person to establish his case before the authorities is sufficient to meet the requirement of principles of natural justice. Para 3 of the judgment reads as under:
3.The only question is : whether the suit is maintainable ? By operation of Section 9 of CPC, a suit of civil nature cognizance of which is expressly or by implication excluded, cannot be tried by any civil Court. The declaration of the President of India, under Articles 341 and 342 of the Constitution, with respect of lists of the Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes in relation to a State, that a particular caste or tribe is defined in Article 366 (24) or (25) respectively, is conclusive subject to an amendment by the Parliament under Article 341 (2) and 342(2) of the Constitution. By necessary implication, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to take cognizance of and give a declaration stands prohibited. The question then is : whether the respondent has been given an opportunity to establish his case before the authorities cancelled his community certificate obtained by him ? The order of the District Collector dated 2-12-1991 clearly mentions that an opportunity was given to the respondent and he himself had examined him. The District Collector does not decide it like a suit. What he does is an enquiry complying with the principles of national justice. He considered his stand, namely, one of the sale deeds of 1962 in which his status was declared as Kattunaicken but the same was disbelieved by the District Collector before cancellation. It is self-serving document. The authority had, therefore, given an opportunity to the respondent to establish his status and found that the certificate previously obtained was wrong and illegal. Accordingly, he cancelled the certificate given to the respondent on January 23, 1971. It is then contended by learned counsel for the respondent that the guidelines had been given by the Collector in the manner in which the enquiry is to be conducted and the synonyms are to be taken and in pursuance thereof, the Revenue Division Officer granted him the certificate. We find that the stand taken is not correct. The guidelines are only to identify the persons and not to give a declaration as to which community comes under particular entry of the Presidential notification. It is then contended that the respondent has been given the right to enjoy the status right from 1971 and, therefore, the principle of estoppel applies to him. We find that it has no force. It is a fraud played on the Constitution. A person who plays fraud and obtains a false certificate cannot plead estoppel. The principle of estoppel arises only when a lawful promise was made and acted upon to his detriment; the party making promise is estopped to resile from the promise. In this case, the principle of estoppel is inapplicable because there is no promise made by the State that the State would protect perpetration of fraud defeating the Constitutional objective, no promise was made that his false certificate will be respected and accepted by the State. On the other hand, he is liable for prosecution. The Court would not lend assistance to perpetrate fraud on the Constitution and he cannot be allowed to get the benefit of the fraudulent certificate obtained from the authorities. The declaration issued by the Courts below is unconstitutional and without jurisdiction. In Vice Chairman, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan & another Vs. Girdharilal Yadav, (2004) 6 SCC 325, it could be viewed that the principles of natural justice should not be stretched too far and the same cannot be put in a straight jacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. As has been ruled by their Lordships, the rules of natural justice namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem do not apply in the same manner to situations which are not alike. For easy reference, para 11 and 12 of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:
11. The admitted facts remain that the respondent is a permanent resident of Haryana. It further stands admitted that at the relevant time, Ahirs/Yadavs of Haryana were not treated as OBC. It further stands admitted that the respondent obtained a certificate showing that he was a resident of Rajasthan, which he was not. It is not disputed that a detailed enquiry was conducted by the District Magistrate, Kota, wherein the respondent had been given an opportunity of hearing. It is also not in dispute that he had given an opportunity to show cause as to why his appointment should not be cancelled not only by the appointing authority but also by the Appellate Authority. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act, 1872 facts admitted need not be proved. It is also a well-settled principle of law that the principles of natural justice should not be stretched too far and the same cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In Bar Council of India v. High Court of Kerala1 this Court has noticed that: (SCC p. 324, paras 49-50) "24. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, cannot be put into a straitjacket formula. Its application will depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. It is also well settled that if a party after having proper notice chose not to appear, he at later stage cannot be permitted to say that he had not been given a fair opportunity of hearing. The question had been considered by a Bench of this Court in Sohan Lal Gupta v. Asha Devi Gupta2 of which two of us (V.N. Khare, CJ. and Sinha, J.) are parties wherein upon noticing a large number of decisions it was held: (SCC p. 506, para 29) "29. The principles of natural justice, it is trite, cannot be put in a straitjacket formula. In a given case the party should not only be required to show that he did not have a proper notice resulting in violation of principles of natural justice but also to show that he was seriously prejudiced thereby."
25. The principles of natural justice, it is well settled, must not be stretched too far.
(See also Mardia Chemicals Ltd. v. Union of India and Canara Bank v. Debasis Das.) In Union of India v. Tulsiram Patel whereupon reliance has been placed by Mr Reddy, this Court held: (SCC p. 477, para 97)
97. Though the two rules of natural justice, namely, nemo judex in causa sua and audi alteram partem, have now a definite meaning and connotation in law and their content and implications are well understood and firmly established, they are nonetheless not statutory rules. Each of these rules yields to and changes with the exigencies of different situations. They do not apply in the same manner to situations which are not alike. These rules are not cast in a rigid mould nor can they be put in a legal straitjacket. They are not immutable but flexible. These rules can be adapted and modified by statutes and statutory rules and also by the constitution of the Tribunal which has to decide a particular matter and the rules by which such Tribunal is governed.' "
12. Furthermore, the respondent herein has been found guilty of an act of fraud. In our opinion, no further opportunity of hearing is necessary to be afforded to him. It is not necessary to dwell into the matter any further as recently in the case of Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi this Court has noticed: (SCC p. 327, paras 15-19) "15. Commission of fraud on court and suppression of material facts are the core issues involved in these matters. Fraud as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together.
16. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by word or letter.
17. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud.
18. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by wilfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations which he knows to be false, and injury ensues therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad.
19. In Derry v. Peek it was held:
In an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made knowingly, or without belief in its truth, or recklessly, without caring whether it be true or false.
A false statement, made through carelessness and without reasonable ground for believing it to be true, may be evidence of fraud but does not necessarily amount to fraud. Such a statement, if made in the honest belief that it is true, is not fraudulent and does not render the person making it liable to an action of deceit."
34. In view of the aforementioned, it is viewed that when the respondents were to take an administrative decision regarding sustainability of the candidature of the applicants for the post of Constable (Driver), they were not required to conduct a detailed inquiry or analyse the facts and circumstances at length. What they were required was to simply indicate the reasons for not sustaining the candidature of the applicants any longer. As has been noticed hereinabove, in all the cases, the respondents could indicate the reasons for canceling the candidature of the applicants. Before passing the final order, they gave reasonable opportunity to all the applicants to comment upon the grounds/ reasons on which the order of cancellation was founded. As argued by the learned counsel for the applicants at length, the grievance of the applicants is that in the order of cancellation of their candidature, the detailed submissions made by the applicants in reply to show cause notice have not been dealt with and commented upon. A perusal of the reply to show cause notice reveals that the applicants broadly commented upon the conflicting reports given by the licencing authorities; prevalent practice in the offices of the licencing authorities regarding issuance of driving licences, fraud played on them by the staff of the licencing authorities and finally they pleaded that their licences are valid. In fact, neither the Delhi Police i.e. the recruiting authority nor the applicants themselves could judge the validity of their licences. These are only the concerned licencing authorities who could have commented whether the licneces possessed by the applicants were validly issued to them or not. Once the recruiting agency got report from the concerned authorities that the licences were invalid, they could not have sustained the candidature of the applicants for the post in question. Besides, once after an interim order passed by this Tribunal, they have deputed a responsible officer to find out the view of the competent authorities regarding validity of the licences and as a result of which it could be revealed that the licences were invalid, it was incumbent upon the Delhi Police to honour such report only. Nevertheless, even if on the basis of two conflicting reports, two views were possible to be taken, we would not like to interfere with one of the two permssible views taken by the recruiting authority. In case the applicants have a grievance against the conflicting reports given by the licencing authorities, the proper course open to them was to make a representation to the competent authority espousing their grievance against such dubious reports. In such situation, the appropriate authority to whom the representation needs to be made, should be the one which supervises the functioning of District Transport Offices/ Transport Offices in the State.
35. Coming to the order passed in batch of the OAs decided on 18.05.2011 including OA 76/2011, we find that in the said case, in view of the fact that the order passed by the respondents was not a simple order of cancellation of the candidature of the applicants but an order having drastic effect on the future of the candidates to participate in the selection as they had been debarred for service in Delhi Police forever and had also ramifications on the criminal cases, the Tribunal directed that such order could not have been passed without full fledged inquiry into the facts of each individual case. Having taken such view, the Tribunal found it not possible to go into the facts of all the cases and adjudicate upon the issue and directed the respondents to issue fresh notices to show cause based on the facts of each case and to take a view after due inquiry. For easy reference, para 8 and 9 of the order are extracted hereinbelow:
8. It is not a case of simply cancelling the candidature of the Applicant, but the order passed by the Respondents has drastic consequences for the future of candidates who appeared in the tests in as much as they have been barred from service in Delhi Police forever. These orders may also affect the defence of the Applicants in criminal cases, which have been filed against them. We are of the view that such order should not have been passed without full fledged inquiry into the facts of each individual case, which, as discussed above, are different in each case. These should not have been decided by one single oninibus non-speaking order.
9. It is not possible for us to go into the facts of all these cases and adjudicate upon the matter. It would be necessary, in the interest of justice, to remand the matter to the Respondents and direct them to issue fresh notices to show cause based on the facts of each case so that the Applicants may have the opportunity to reply to the notice and, after due inquiry, pass a speaking order based on cogent reasons. The notices to show cause and the orders passed thereon are quashed and set aside. We make it clear that we have not gone into the merit of any case and have not made any comments about the merits. The above directions should be complied with within four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The selection of the candidates to the post of Constable (Driver) would abide by the decision taken by the Respondents pursuant to these directions. Needless to say the Applicants will have the liberty to challenge the fresh order passed by the Respondents, if their grievance still survives. There will be no orders as to costs.
36. Admittedly, the situation before us is quite different for reasons viz:
(i) In the said case, the impugned order was not the simple order of cancellation of candidature but also had the ramifications on future career of the applicants as it had debarred them from service in Delhi Police forever;
(ii) The Tribunal did not have the benefit of the letter dated 4.09.2010 before it; and
(iii) The ramification of the information collected by the ACP, Crime Branch regarding the validity of the licence was not commented upon.
As has been viewed by the Honble Supreme Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer Vs. Kariogowda and Others (2010) 5 SCC 708), it is the duty of the court to bring litigation to an end or at least ensure that if possible, no further litigation arises from the cases pending before the court in accordance with law. This doctrine would be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgment of the court has attained finality before the highest court. Para 105 of the judgment reads as under:-
105. An established maxim boni judicis est lites dirimere, ne lis ex lite oritur, et interest reipublicae ut sint fines litium, casts a duty upon the court to bring litigation to an end or at least ensure that if possible, no further litigation arises from the cases pending before the court in accordance with law. This doctrine would be applicable with greater emphasis where the judgment of the scourt has attained finality before the highest court. All other courts should decide similar cases, particularly covered cases, expeditiously and in consonance with the law of precedents. There should be speedy disposal of cases particularly where the small landowners have been deprived of their small landholdings by compulsive acquisition. Any unnecessary delay in payment of the compensation to them would cause serious prejudice and even may have adverse effect on their living. In these circumstances, we consider it necessary to issue appropriate directions to the State authorities and request the courts, where cases are pending arising from the same notification to dispose of the pending proceedings without any further delay.
37. As far as the effect of the order on the outcome of the criminal trial is concerned, we are sanguine that the standard of proof in two proceedings is totally different. When we may have to take our view on preponderance of probability, before giving finding in a criminal case, the trial Court needs to satisfy itself with the proof beyond reasonable doubt. Besides, we have gone through the copy of the note sheets produced by the applicants. Perusal of the note sheets revealed that the recruiting authority has taken its view only after collecting the report regarding the validity of the licence of the applicant by deputing a responsible officer. From the notings in the case of Rajni Kant (OA 2920/2011), we find that his driving licence no.76828/Ch. was got verified from the issuing authority i.e. District Transport Officer, Churachandpur, Manipur, who vide his report dated 31.03.2010 intimated that the said driving licence is false and fabricated one. Since in another report dated 19.05.2010, the licence was reported as genuine, a responsible officer was deputed to inquire into the matter. After verification by an Inspector of Crime Branch, the Additional Commissioner of Police (Crime) intimated that the driving licence no. 76828/Ch. was issued in the name of Miss Nlangnelholh d/o Liankholal Gante resident of New Lamka, Churachandpur. For easy reference, relevant extract of the note sheet is extracted hereinbelow:
Now vide FR, Addl. CP/Crime has intimated that verification about the Driving Licence No. 76828/Ch. was got conducted from the office of DTO/Churachandpur, Manipur and found that the above driving licence was issued on 02.06.2006 in the name of Miss Nlangnelholh d/o Liankholal Gante resident of New Lamka, Churachandpur, Manipur by the DTO/Churachandpur. As regards issuance of letters/reports dated 31.03.2010 and 19.05.2010, the DTO has stated that both the letters have been issued from his office. The letters/ reports dated 19.05.2010 was prepared due to some clerical mistake and he has signed in routine manner as such the same may be treated as nullified. As per DTOs report (Point No.5&6), Sh. Rajni Kant has not applied for any Driving Licence in this office. It would be relevant to extract the analysis of various reports done by the respondents before canceling the candidature of the applicant in said case:
Dated Report Action 31.03.2010 (Flag A) Licence is not found in the record of this office it is found to be false and fabricated one. SCN issued. During the decision of SCN, an another report dated 19.05.2010 was also received in this Hdqrs.
19.05.2010 (Flag B) D/L is standing in the name of Rajni Kant and found genuine and correct as per DTO office record. Due to two contradictory reports, the verification of the both reports were got conducted through Crime Br.
30.07.2010 (Flag C 1.D/L No.76828/Ch. was issued to Miss Nianggneihoih d/o Liankholal Gangte of Vengnuam, New Lamka, Churachand Pur on 02.06.2006.
2. Also clarified that both the report dated 31.3.2010 & 19.5.2010 were generated in DTO office and report dated 19.5.2010 was prepared due to some clerical mistake and signed it in a routine manner and report be treated as unified.
3. As per DTO, Churachandpur record Rajni Kant has not applied for any D/L in his office. On receipt of report, the candidature was cancelled.
Aggrieved by this he filed OA No.2920/2011 in which he has annexed a D/L verification report obtained by his Advocate under RTI Act which is in his favour.
On direction of Honble CAT verification of said RTI report was got conducted through Crime Br.
Now vide FR ACP/AATS/Crime has submitted a report dated 22.10.2012.
22.10.2012 D/L No. 76828/Ch. was issued to Miss Nianggneihoih d/o Liankholal Gangte of Vengnuam, New Lamka, Churachand Pur on 02.06.2006.
Similarly, in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi (OA 1566/2012), Inspector (Crime Branch) submitted a verification report dated 30.12.2011 alongwith ARTO report dated 28.12.2011 stating that he personally checked the dispatch register of ARTO Mathura to verify the status of letter dated 3.09.2011 and found the same as demand letter dated 30.08.2011 instead of licence verification report. The said letter was sent to the owner of vehicle No.UP-85-Q-9586. For easy reference, relevant excerpts of the note sheet in the case of Ashok Kumar Yadav are extracted hereinbelow:
However, Inspr./Crime Branch personally visited Licencing Authority Mathura and submitted his fresh verification report dated 30.12.2011 alongwith ARTO report dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure-V & VI respectively) vide which, he stated that he personally checked the dispatch register of ARTO Mathura to verify the status of letter No. 1202/Licence Satyapan/2011 dated 03.09.2011 (mentioned at para (iii) above in which licence is said to be valid) was found demand letter dated 30.08.2011 instead of licence verification report and the same was sent to the owners of vehicle No. UP-85-Q-9586 therefore it may be treated as null and void.
ARTO Mathura vide his letter dated 28.12.2011 (Annexure V) has also clarified that driving licence No.15237/MTR/07 was issued in the name of Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Metabh Singh instead of Ashok Kumar Yadav (as already stated vide verification report dated 17.01.2011 mentioned at Para (ii) above. As has been noticed hereinabove, even driving licence No.15237/MTR/07 was also not found issued in the name of the applicant.
38. Also in the case of Krishan Kumar (OA 1581/2012), it is noticed by the respondents that the verification was got conducted by the ACP (Crime) which revealed that the licence no.7322/AG/-06 dated 25.04.2006 (actual date of issue 22.06.2006) was found registered in the name of Shri Mahender Meena s/o Shri C.S.Meena, r/o G 194/A, South Railway Colony, Agra Cantt. Relevant extract of the note sheet is extracted hereinbelow:-
In this connection, it is submitted that in pursuance of Honble CAT, New Delhi interim order dated 11.01.2011 in OA No. 82/2011 filed by the applicant, the verification was got conducted by ACP/Crime which revealed that 7322/AG/06 dated 25.04.2006 (actual date of issue 22.06.2006) was found registered in the name of some other person i.e. one Shri Mahender Meena S/o Sh. C.S.Meena, R/o G-194/A, South Railway Colony, Agra Cantt, Agra for Motorcycle + LMV. As per terms and conditions advertised for the post, a candidate should have valid driving licence at the time of submission of application form. The reports/judgment quoted in the reply has no relevancy in the case of the applicant. The candidate has not submitted any documentary proof that the D/L No.7322/AG/06 is issued in his name. Before giving employment to a driver, the department is required to be satisfied with regard to correctness and genuineness of the license the candidate is holding. The applicant submitted his application form with a forged document and have no valid D/L. In the case of Ashish (OA 1582/2012), the report of Shri Bir Singh Yadav, ACP revealed that the licence particulars of which were mentioned by the applicant in para 5 of the application form, was not issued in his name.
39. We have perused the note sheets in all the 35 cases and it may not be necessary to refer to each of them separately. We are satisfied that the recruiting agency (Delhi Police) made all such efforts which could be possible before taking an administrative decision to satisfy themselves regarding validity of the licences of the applicants. Before taking an administrative decision regarding sustenance of the candidature of a candidate in selection, no better efforts could be expected from them. It is not for the recruiting agency to arrive at an independent decision regarding validity of a document produced by the candidate. The recruiting agency has to go by the report of the authority competent to issue such document in this regard.
40. We also find from the short affidavit filed on behalf of the Commissioner of Police in OA 1566/2012 on 13.02.2013 that vide letter no.14 (Ind.Gov)Admn./10-64 TR/09-10 dated 19.08.2010, a request was made by the Assistant Transport Commissioner (Admn), Uttar Pradesh to the Additional Secretary, Ministry of Home for verification of the record pertaining to 220 driving licences issued from Agra Region. In response to the said letter, the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Agra) gave direction to Regional Transport Officer, Agra for verifying the record and submits his report. As per the contents of the letter dated 4.09.2010 addressed by the Deputy Transport Commissioner (Agra) to the Chief Secretary (Transport), the relevant record was brought from Mathura to Agra. After scrutiny of the record, the report was prepared. The contents of the report as extracted in the communication dated 4.09.2010 have been quoted above. Along with the said letter, the report of 220 driving licences was also enclosed. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the said report placed on record, as enclosure to OA No. 4067/2012, is extracted/scanned hereinbelow:-
From the aforementioned, it is clear that the candidature of the applicants has been cancelled after due verification.
41. From the stand taken by some of the applicants in reply to show cause notice and their counsel during the course of hearing as well, it could appear that they expected the recruiting authority (Delhi Police) to take a view regarding the validity of the driving licences. When such argument was advanced before us, out of curiosity, we referred to the Central Motor Vehicles Rules, 1989. On perusal of the said rules, we could find that every applicant for issue of the licence under Chapter II of the Rules should produce as evidence of his address and age, any one or more of the following documents in original or relevant extracts thereof duly attested by a Gazetted Officer of the Central Government or of a State Government or an officer of a local body who is equivalent in rank of a Gazetted Officer of the Government or Village Administration Officer or Municipal Corporation Councilor or Panchayat President, namely:-
1. Ration Card,
2. Electoral Roll,
3. Life Insurance Policy,
4. Passport, [***] (6. Pay slip issued by any office of the Central Government or a State Government or a local body,] [***] School Certificate,
9. Birth Certificate,
10. Certificate granted by a registered medical practitioner not below the rank of a Civil Surgeon, as to the age of the applicant.
Nevertheless, in proviso to Rule 4, it was provided that where the applicant is not able to produce any of the above mentioned documents for sufficient reason, the licensing authority may accept any affidavit sworn by the applicant before an Executive Magistrate, or a First Class Judicial Magistrate or a Notary Public as evidence of age and address.
42. Rule 10 and 11 of the aforesaid Rules provide for renewal of learners licence and the preliminary test before issuance of such licence. Rule 14 provides for application for a driving licence and in terms of the said Rule, the application needs to be accompanied by an effective learners licence amongst other documents. Rule 15 provides for driving test. In terms of the said rule, no person shall appear for the test of competence to drive unless he has a learners licence. We also may refer to certain provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988, which provide for possession of one year old Light Motor Vehicle Licence before submitting an application for Heavy Driving Licence. For easy reference, Section 7 of the said Act is reproduced hereinbelow:-
(i) No person shall be granted a learners licence to drive a transport vehicle unless he has held a driving licence to drive a light motor vehicle for at least one year.
43. With reference to the aforementioned provisions of the Rules and Act, we asked the counsel for the applicants to establish that the applicants procured the licence as per procedure mentioned in the Motor Vehicles Act and rules thereunder.In response, the learned counsels submitted that it is not for this Tribunal to make a declaration on the validity of the driving licence as in terms of Section 14 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is only to deal with the matters in relation to recruitment, and matters concerning recruitment to any All-India Service or to any civil service of the Union or a civil post under the Union or to a post connected with defence or in the defence service, being, in either case, a post filled by a civilian. Similar reaction came from them when we referred to the photocopies of certain licences placed on record. Once it has been a stand taken by the counsel for the applicants that it is not for this Tribunal to go into the question of validity of the licence, it is not understood as to how they are seeking direction from this Tribunal to the recruiting agency to take a decision on the said issue. In fact, it is not for the recruiting agency to pronounce on the validity of the licence and the said authority could only rely on the report of the authority competent to issue licence and when a responsible officer from the Crime Branch deputed for the purpose was apprised that the licences, particulars of which were mentioned by the applicants in para 5 of the application form were not issued to them, the recruiting agency had no option but to cancel the candidature of the applicants.
44. Since the matter was kept on Board approximately for a period of 50 days, we had an opportunity to look at the photo copies of the documents claimed by the applicants as driving licences issued to them. Even we could not inspire our confidence about the validity of the said documents. Nevertheless, when we proposed to seek clarification from the counsel in this regard, they declined to respond taking the plea that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction to go into the said facts.
45. In rejoinder, Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned counsel categorically submitted that they never expected this Tribunal to pronounce on the validity of the licence. We also countenance the view of the learned counsel. The recruiting agency was neither competent to go into the question of validity of driving licence nor they could have gone into the correctness of the conflicting reports issued. The best course they could adopt was to make direct verification about the fate and status of the licence which they did by sending an officer of Crime Branch and finally acted upon his report.
46. Shri Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicant submitted that once the record of the Regional Transport Office, Mathura and Agra had been sealed, it is not understood how any report could be procured after 4.09.2010. We notice that in the said letter dated 4.09.2010, it is mentioned that the driving licence registers were kept in sealed almirahs for safe custody with the special efforts of Divisional Transport Officer, Agra. In fact, the registers were preserved to avoid any tampering by the unauthorized persons and there was no bar in giving information to the authorized person on the basis of the said record. Thus, we are unable to agree with Shri Anil Singal, learned counsel for the applicant that the report received after 4.09.2010 could not be relied upon.
47. Since the cancellation of candidature of the applicants has defeated their claim for appointment as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police, one more question we need to address to in the present case is whether a candidate who participated in the selection acquired any indefeasible right to appointment even when the documents referred to by him in his application form are found under cloud. It is stare decisis that even a selected candidate acquires no indefeasible right to appointment.
48. In Union of India Vs. S.S. Uppal and Another (1996 (1) SCSLJ 225), the Honble Supreme Court categorically ruled that appointment to a post is not automatic and mere inclusion of the name in the panel does not confer any right of appointment. Para 13 of the judgment reads as under:-
There is also another aspect of the case. The appointment as IAS after inclusion of the name of a candidate in the select list is not automatic. Mere inclusion of the name in the panel does not confer any right of appointment. This is also not a case of inordinate delay. The State Government as well as the officer concerned had to go through certain formalities before the actual appointment was made. It appears from the facts of this case that after the vacancy had arisen on 1.2.1989 a proposal of appointment of Uppal to IAS from the State Government was put on 14.2.1989. In Jammu & Kashmir Public Service Commission Vs. Farhat Rasool & Ors (1996 (1) SCSLJ 4), it could be held that:
8. The University's Certificate can be of no assistance to the respondent as it merely says about the admission to the Degree in 1987 (August). As to when had this event really taken place cannot be known from this document. The two certificates of Assistant Controller of Examinations on which reliance has been placed by the respondent's counsel cannot alter the position that by 13/2/1988, when the respondent had applied for the post in question, he had not passed the examination in question as had been stated by him in his application form. The further wrong information given in the application form was about securing of 5608 marks out of 8000 marks. It seems to us that mention was made about marks secured to lend credence to the statement made by the respondent that he had passed the examination, which in fact he had not done by 13/2/1988.
9. So, we are of the opinion that the division bench of the High court took a wrong view about the fulfilment of the eligibility condition. The decision of this court in the aforementioned case cannot be called in aid by the respondent because there the question for examination was entirely different. The present is a case where almost a fraud was sought to be played by the respondent by giving wrong information as to his eligibility, benefit of which fraud cannot be allowed to the respondent.
10. The appeal is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The result is that the writ petition filed by Respondent 1 stands dismissed. On the facts and circumstances of the case, we leave the parties to bear their own costs throughout.
In Pramod Lahudas Meshram Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors (JT 1996 (9) SC 260), it could be viewed that once an SC candidate was found selected against OBC vacancy, there was no illegality in the action of the respondents terminating his service. Para 3 of the judgment is quoted hereinbelow:-
3. Shri A.K. Sanghi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, has contended that when the posts were advertised and the candidates were found eligible, it does not mandate that there should be an interview and selection. Obviously, the Service Selection Board having found the petitioner to be eligible and qualified, recommended him and was accordingly appointed as Junior Engineer, when it was sought to be cancelled on a letter written by the Member secretary of the Service Selection Board, they are entitled to be heard. No such opportunity has ever been given before cancellation of their appointments. It was, therefore, violative of principles of natural justice. We find no force in the contention. It is seen that on their own admission they have merely applied for the post pursuant to an advertisement made for the selection. It is the case of the Selection Board that a regular selection has to be made and selecting the eligible candidates, recommendation for appointment would be made. Therefore, the letter can be said to have conveyed that the recommendations were not authorised and according to the rules; such being the admitted position, we do not find any fault to cancel the appointments. Under those circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the action taken by the respondents. However, such things will not be permitted to be kept under the carpet. The State government is directed to refer the matter to the appropriate State CBI enquiry and the Inspector concerned would make an independent investigation into the matter to find out as to who were responsible for such malpractice committed and it will be open to take appropriate criminal prosecution launched against the culprits. In K.G.Ashok & Ors Vs. Kerala Public Service Commission (Civil Appeal No. 3582 of 2001 decided on 3.05.2001), it could be viewed that once the candidate made false declaration in his application form, the rejection of his candidature cannot be considered suffering from any infirmity. Relevant excerpts of the judgment read as under:-
21. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that out of 1270 candidates 436 persons including appellants in these appeals applied for more than one district as they were misled by the short notification dated 11-4-1996 and were not aware of the penal provisions contained in Note-(2) of gazette notification dated 2-4-1996. In this regard, it may be stated that in the concluding portion of the short notification dated 11-4-1996 it was specifically mentioned that for more details a candidate was required to refer to concerned notification meaning thereby the aforesaid notification dated 2-4-1996. Moreover it has been further stated in the short notification that model application form has been appended in the gazette notification again meaning thereby notification dated 2-4-1996. In these cases some of the appellants in their application form, in reply to column 8(b), which requires a candidate to state whether he had applied in more than one district, had stated 'No' and others 'Yes', though all of them had applied in more than one district. In view of language in the short notification a candidate was obliged under law to look into the gazette notification dated 2-4-1996, more so when in the application form which was duly filled up by the appellants, it was specifically enumerated that "candidates should read the relevant gazette notification inviting applications before filling up the application form". Thus we find no substance in this submission as well.
22. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that decision of this Court in the case of O. N. Omana v. Kerala Public Service Commission (S.L.P. (Civil) No. 12562 of 1999) is quite distinguishable as in that case though there was one notification inviting applications for appointment in several districts and similar restriction was there and in contravention of the same application was filed for appointment in more than one district, but written test was conducted in different districts on different dates and not on one date and the candidates appeared in more than one district. In our view, though in the present case written test was conducted in all the 14 districts on one day but that cannot be a ground for making any distinction. Application of some of the appellants have been rejected on the ground that though they had applied for appointment in more than one district but made a false declaration that they had applied in one district only whereas in other cases they did apply in more than one district and stated in the application that they had so applied. According to the gazette notification both the grounds were independently sufficient for rejection of candidature of a candidate. It appears that the Commission has been liberal in simply rejecting their candidature for the time being and had not debarred them from applying for any public post either for a specified period or permanently inasmuch as for making a false declaration though the appellant were liable to be criminally prosecuted but no such steps have been taken against them.
23. Learned counsel for the appellants lastly submitted that as number of appellants has crossed the upper age limit and number of vacancies are available, without disturbing already selected candidates, the appellants can be considered for selection on the basis of their placement in the merit list. In our view seeing the conduct of appellants in making false declaration and applying in more than one district in contravention of gazette notification, it is not possible to accede to their prayer even on equitable grounds.
24. For the foregoing reasons we are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by a two Judge Bench of this Court in the case of Omana and the High Court was quite justified in upholding order of rejection of candidature of the appellants by the Commission. In Krishan Yadav Vs. State of Haryana (JT 1994 (4) 45), it could be viewed that a tainted selection needs to be cancelled. Relevant excerpt of the judgment reads as under:-
17. It may not be too much to draw an inference that all was motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without interview, fake and ghost interview, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity.
18. The story does not end here. From out of the "selection list" secret communications have been sent to the candidates. Selections were made without medical test or verification of antecedents.
19. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trust. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken, the path of least resistance stating in view of the destruction of records it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless.
20. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalised for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "Fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors.
21. The effect of setting aside the selection would mean the appointments held by these 96 candidates (including the respondents) will have no right to go to the office. Normally speaking, we should require them to disgorge the benefit of these ill-gotten gains. That means they will have to repay the entire salary and perks which they have received from the said office. But, here we show a streak of sympathy. For more than 4 years they were enjoying the benefit of "office". The proper lesson would be learnt by them if their appointments are set aside teaching them that dishonesty could never pay.
22. The next question is what is; the future course of action? It is hereby ordered :
(i) A fresh selection shall be made for 96 posts of Taxation Inspectors.
(ii) All candidates who had applied in response to Advertisement No, 3 dated 7-7-88 and who were found eligible will be entitled to take such an examination.
(iii) The total marks for written examination shall be 200.
(iv) The total marks for viva voce shall be 25 that is not more than 12-1 / 2 per cent as has been laid down in Mohinder Sain Garg v. State of Punjab, (1991) 1 SCC 662 with reference to the very post.
(v) The advertisement announcing the fresh examination shall be issued immediately, fixing the last date as 30th June, 1994.
(vi) Intimation as to the acceptance of applications and the schedule of the examination, shall be given on or before l6th of August, 1994.
(vii) The examination shall commence in as many centres as required from 1st of September, 1994.
(viii) The evaluation shall be completed before 31st of October, 1994.
(ix) The marks obtained shall be published in three prominent dailies having large circulation in the State of Haryana in addition to the display on the notice board.
(x) The number of candidates called for viva voce shall not exceed three times the number of posts to be filled.
(xi) The viva voce shall commence from 7th of November, 1994 and be completed by 25th November, 1994. The final analysis of the tabulated results shall be submitted to this Court on or before 10th of December, 1994.
We make it clear that not one of the persons connected with the present examination shall be allowed to have anything to do with the present examination. We expect strict compliance with this order. Under no circumstances will there be an extension of time in this regard. The State shall endeavour its best to see that the examination are conducted fairly without giving any room for any complaint. If necessary, it could have an independent body or agency in order that it may infuse confidence and make people believe that the misdeeds complained of in this case constitute an isolated chapter and a thing of past.
(xii) Since we have accepted the C.B.I. report we direct that necessary prosecutions be launched early against all concerned however high or low they may be in the hierarchy of officialdom. The State Government will do well to grant the necessary sanctions if so required without undue delay. The Chief Secretary of the State of Haryana shall pay his last attention to this.
23. The candidates like the appellants have suffered immensely in view of the arbitrary selection. They have been waging battles relentlessly. They should be compensated adequately. We think the least that we could do is they should be compensated at least in a small way. Therefore, we impose a cost of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand only) on each of the respondents 1 to 4 making it clear that each member of the selection board shall pay out of person and the same shall not be debited to the account of the State. Normally, we should have awarded costs, against A. P. Jain who is the arch villain as per the report of the C.B.I. but unfortunately he is not impleaded as a party. But we are confronted by the thought that the long arm of law will not fail to reach him. The award of cost is only to express our profound displeasure on this unjust and arbitrary selection.
24. All these efforts by us are aimed at cleansing the public administration. No doubt, it may be stupendous task but we do hope this small step will make great strides in the days to come. Accordingly, the appeals stand allowed. In the case of Rubi (Chandra) Dutta Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited ( 2011 (11) SCC 269), the Honble Supreme Court viewed that at the time of giving employment to a driver, the owner is required to satisfy with regard to correctness and genuineness of the licence he was holding. Para 24 of the judgment reads as under:-
Obviously, it goes without saying that at the time of giving employment to Sirajul Haque, the owner of the bus must have examined the licence issued to him and after satisfaction thereof, he must have been given employment. Nothing more was required to have been done by the appellant. After all, at the time of giving employment to a driver, the owner is required to be satisfied with regard to correctness and genuineness of the licence he was holding. After taking the test, if the owner is satisfied with the driving skills of the driver then, obviously, he may be given an appointment.
49. In the present case, heavy driving licence particulars of which were disclosed in column 5 of the application form, were found invalid. In other words, the information given in the application form was found incorrect. When no licence details of which were mentioned in the application form were validly possessed by the applicant, it could be presumed that the information furnished in the application form was false. Thus, in view of the declaration made in the application form and the provisions of SO No.16 (previous Standing Order No.371/2009 dated 07.09.2010), the candidature of the applicant was cancelled. For easy reference, the contents of clause 5 and 17 of the application form and relevant excerpts of the Standing Order and application form are extracted hereinbelow:
5. Heavy Driving Licence Number Date of issue ..
Name of Licensing Authority .
Validity
xx xx
17. Case reference: If the answers to any of the above mentioned questioned is Yes then give full particulars of the case FIR No. & date, Under Sections, Police Station, District and present status of the case at the time of filling up this application form.
DECLARATION I have gone through the advertisement and instructions and understood its contents. I do hereby declare and confirm that all the entries in this application form are correct. I undertake that in case any information furnished by me is found to be false or incomplete or any material information found to be concealed by me, my candidature may be cancelled.
xxx xxx In case it is detected at a later stage after the candidate has joined the Delhi Police that a candidate had concealed his involvement and/or arrest in criminal case (s), etc. as above or has furnished false information/false or bogus or forged documents, in the application form and attestation form, such cases shall be dealt as under:-
(a) In case the declaration is found false/bogus after appointment but before the individual has been confirmed, his services shall be terminated under Rule 5 (i) of the CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 after issuing a show cause notice to the individual and then passing a suitable speaking order after considering his response to the show cause notice and giving him an opportunity for personal hearing.
(b) In case the declaration is found false/bogus after an individual has been confirmed, he should be dealt with departmentally under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and then action be taken to dismiss/remove him or her from service or take any other action as warranted under the facts and circumstances of the case.
(c) In the even of any forgery/cheating of any document (s), being detected at any stage, besides taking departmental action as mentioned above, a criminal case may also be got registered against the individual concerned as per law. However, in case of candidate who has been confirmed, a view shall be taken by the appellate authority whether a criminal case needs to be got registered or that merely taking departmental action would suffice. In the circumstances, the applicants have not acquired any indefeasible right for appointment as Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police.
50. We are unable to agree with the submission made by Shri Anil Singal, counsel for applicant that till the outcome of the criminal proceedings, the cancellation of candidature of the applicant should be kept in abeyance. Both the object and scope of criminal trial is different from those of administrative action. When in the criminal trial, a view needs to be taken regarding the involvement of the applicant in a criminal offence, in the administrative action taken by the respondents regarding the candidature of applicant, they were simply to take a view regarding the suitability of the candidature of the applicant. Once they had doubt about the authenticity of the driving licence (HDL of the applicant), which is one of the requisite conditions for appointment, they were well within their right not considering them eligible for appointment to the post in question. In fact, the efforts made by Delhi Police (Recruiting Authority) in selecting the candidates with neat and clean record deserve appreciation. The Constable (Driver) in Delhi Police works in close association with executive/operational staff and the persons with dubious record, if inducted in the force, would spoil the atmosphere in the disciplined force. A person who himself is beneficiary of irregularity would find no wrong in any irregularity and would always sympathize with the person indulged in similar irregularity and try to help them. We also do not find any force in the submission of Mr. Singal, counsel for applicants that since the applicants themselves are victims of fraud, their candidature should not be cancelled. In fact the stand taken by the respondents that these are the Licencing Authorities and their officials who had played fraud on them, strengthened the orders of cancellation of their candidature, for the simple reason that even if the staff of Licencing Authority committed any fraud, the applicants were beneficiary of the same. Such submissions made by and on behalf of applicants are quite bizarre as the outcome of a fraud cannot be considered as genuine. Similarly, the beneficiary of a forged/fraud/fake/fraudulent document cannot be considered innocent. Mr. Singal, counsel for applicant also tried to submit that the driving licences possessed by them were not forged and they did not commit any fraud. The fraud is a vital factor which meant an intention to deceive, whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the others is immaterial. The expression fraud involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable or of money and it will include any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind and reputation etc. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. A fraud is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain anothers loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most of the proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. The term had been commented upon and defined by their Lordships of the Honble Supreme Court in Bhaurao Dagdu Paralkar Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors (Appeal (civil) 5162-5167 of 2005 decided on 22.08.2005). For easy reference, relevant excerpts of the judgment are extracted hereinbelow:-
10. By "fraud" is meant an intention to deceive; whether it is from any expectation of advantage to the party himself or from the ill will towards the other is immaterial. The expression "fraud" involves two elements, deceit and injury to the person deceived. Injury is something other than economic loss, that is, deprivation of property, whether movable or immovable or of money and it will include and any harm whatever caused to any person in body, mind, reputation or such others. In short, it is a non-economic or non-pecuniary loss. A benefit or advantage to the deceiver, will almost always call loss or detriment to the deceived. Even in those rare cases where there is a benefit or advantage to the deceiver, but no corresponding loss to the deceived, the second condition is satisfied. (See Dr. Vimla v. Delhi Administration (1963 Supp. 2 SCR 585) and Indian Bank v. Satyam Febres (India) Pvt. Ltd. (1996 (5) SCC 550).
10. A "fraud" is an act of deliberate deception with the design of securing something by taking unfair advantage of another. It is a deception in order to gain by another's loss. It is a cheating intended to get an advantage. (See S.P. Changalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath (1994 (1) SCC 1).
11. "Fraud" as is well known vitiates every solemn act. Fraud and justice never dwell together. Fraud is a conduct either by letter or words, which includes the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. It is also well settled that misrepresentation itself amounts to fraud. Indeed, innocent misrepresentation may also give reason to claim relief against fraud. A fraudulent misrepresentation is called deceit and consists in leading a man into damage by willfully or recklessly causing him to believe and act on falsehood. It is a fraud in law if a party makes representations, which he knows to be false, and injury enures therefrom although the motive from which the representations proceeded may not have been bad. An act of fraud on court is always viewed seriously. A collusion or conspiracy with a view to deprive the rights of the others in relation to a property would render the transaction void ab initio. Fraud and deception are synonymous. Although in a given case a deception may not amount to fraud, fraud is anathema to all equitable principles and any affair tainted with fraud cannot be perpetuated or saved by the application of any equitable doctrine including res judicata. (See Ram Chandra Singh v. Savitri Devi and Ors. (2003 (8) SCC 319).
12. "Fraud" and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael Levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary "fraud" in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, "fraud" is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 defines "fraud" as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact, which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case i.e. Derry and Ors. v. Peek (1886-90) All ER 1 what constitutes "fraud" was described thus: (All ER p. 22 B-C) "fraud" is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false". But "fraud" in public law is not the same as "fraud" in private law. Nor can the ingredients, which establish "fraud" in commercial transaction, be of assistance in determining fraud in Administrative Law. It has been aptly observed by Lord Bridge in Khawaja v. Secretary of State for Home Deptt. (1983) 1 All ER 765, that it is dangerous to introduce maxims of common law as to effect of fraud while determining fraud in relation of statutory law. "Fraud" in relation to statute must be a colourable transaction to evade the provisions of a statute. "If a statute has been passed for some one particular purpose, a court of law will not countenance any attempt which may be made to extend the operation of the Act to something else which is quite foreign to its object and beyond its scope. Present day concept of fraud on statute has veered round abuse of power or mala fide exercise of power. It may arise due to overstepping the limits of power or defeating the provision of statute by adopting subterfuge or the power may be exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations. The colour of fraud in public law or administration law, as it is developing, is assuming different shades. It arises from a deception committed by disclosure of incorrect facts knowingly and deliberately to invoke exercise of power and procure an order from an authority or tribunal. It must result in exercise of jurisdiction which otherwise would not have been exercised. The misrepresentation must be in relation to the conditions provided in a section on existence or non-existence of which the power can be exercised. But non-disclosure of a fact not required by a statute to be disclosed may not amount to fraud. Even in commercial transactions non-disclosure of every fact does not vitiate the agreement. "In a contract every person must look for himself and ensures that he acquires the information necessary to avoid bad bargain. In public law the duty is not to deceive. (See Shrisht Dhawan (Smt.) v. M/s. Shaw Brothers, (1992 (1) SCC 534).
14. In that case it was observed as follows:
"Fraud and collusion vitiate even the most solemn proceedings in any civilized system of jurisprudence. It is a concept descriptive of human conduct. Michael levi likens a fraudster to Milton's sorcerer, Comus, who exulted in his ability to, 'wing me into the easy-hearted man and trap him into snares'. It has been defined as an act of trickery or deceit. In Webster's Third New International Dictionary fraud in equity has been defined as an act or omission to act or concealment by which one person obtains an advantage against conscience over another or which equity or public policy forbids as being prejudicial to another. In Black's Legal Dictionary, fraud is defined as an intentional perversion of truth for the purpose of inducing another in reliance upon it to part with some valuable thing belonging to him or surrender a legal right; a false representation of a matter of fact whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of that which should have been disclosed, which deceives and is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury. In Concise Oxford Dictionary, it has been defined as criminal deception, use of false representation to gain unjust advantage; dishonest artifice or trick. According to Halsbury's Laws of England, a representation is deemed to have been false, and therefore a misrepresentation, if it was at the material date false in substance and in fact. Section 17 of the Contract Act defines fraud as act committed by a party to a contract with intent to deceive another. From dictionary meaning or even otherwise fraud arises out of deliberate active role of representator about a fact which he knows to be untrue yet he succeeds in misleading the representee by making him believe it to be true. The representation to become fraudulent must be of the fact with knowledge that it was false. In a leading English case Derry v. Peek [(1886-90) ALL ER Rep 1: (1889) 14 AC 337 (HL)] what constitutes fraud was described thus: (All Er p. 22 B-C) 'Fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made (i) knowingly, or (ii) without belief in its truth, or (iii) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false'."
13. This aspect of the matter has been considered recently by this Court in Roshan Deen v. Preeti Lal (2002 (1) SCC 100) Ram Preeti Yadav v. U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education (2003 (8) SCC 311), Ram Chandra Singh's case (supra) and Ashok Leyland Ltd. v. State of T.N. and Another (2004 (3) SCC 1).
14. Suppression of a material document would also amount to a fraud on the court. (see Gowrishankar v. Joshi Amba Shankar Family Trust (1996 (3) SCC 310) and S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu's case (supra).
15. "Fraud" is a conduct either by letter or words, which induces the other person or authority to take a definite determinative stand as a response to the conduct of the former either by words or letter. Although negligence is not fraud but it can be evidence on fraud; as observed in Ram Preeti Yadav's case (supra).
16. In Lazarus Estate Ltd. v. Beasley (1956) 1 QB 702, Lord Denning observed at pages 712 & 713, "No judgment of a Court, no order of a Minister can be allowed to stand if it has been obtained by fraud. Fraud unravels everything."
In the same judgment Lord Parker LJ observed that fraud vitiates all transactions known to the law of however high a degree of solemnity. (page 722). These aspects were recently highlighted in the State of Andhra Pradesh and Anr. v. T. Suryachandr Rao (2005 (5) SCALE 21). Also in New India Assurance Co. Shimla Vs. Kamla and Others (2001) 4 SCC 342), it was held as under:-
12. As a point of law we have no manner of doubt that a fake licence cannot get its forgery outfit stripped off merely on account of some officer renewing the same with or without knowing it to be forged. Section 15 of the Act only empowers any licensing authority to "renew a driving licnce issued under the provisions of this Act with effect from the date of its expiry." No licensing authority has the power to renew a fake licence and, therefore, a renewal if at all made cannot transform a fake licence as genuine. Any counterfeit document showing that it contains a purported order of a statutory authority would ever remain counterfeit albeit the fact that other persons including some statutory authorities would have acted on the document unwittingly on the assumption that it is genuine.
13. The observation of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Sucha Singh (1994 (1) Acc CJ 374) (supra) that renewal of a document which purports to be a driving licence, will robe even a forged document with validity on account of S. 15 of the Act, propound a very dangerous proposition. If that proposition is allowed to stand as a legal principle, it may, no doubt, thrill counterfeiters the world over as they would be encouraged to manufacture fake documents in a legion. What was originally a forgery would remain null and void for ever and it would not acquire legal validity at any time by whatever process of sanctification subsequently done on it. Forgery is antithesis to legality and law cannot afford to validate a forgery. The Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Ram Kumar Vs. Lt. Governor, G.N.C.T.D (Writ Petition (Civil) No.1604/2003 decided on 11.08.2006) viewed that the employee who admittedly has adopted unfair means and made false declarations under his own attestation cannot claim that the punishment awarded is disproportionate to offence committed. Relevant excerpt of the order reads as under:-
6. On behalf of the petitioner it is submitted by Mr. J.K.Das that the petitioner is doing a minimal kind of a job whereas the employee involved in the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (supra) was a teacher. The question of character, it is submitted by him, was very important for the teacher and not so important for the present petitioner. I have given a careful thought to the proposition made by Mr. Das. I am, however, unable to agree with him. For any public employment character should be a basic requirement. The propensity displayed by the petitioner in not only giving false information but also procuring false certificate by defrauding other authorities is highly serious. Whether or not the particulars led to his appointment is not a material consideration. It is the choice of the employer as to whether he is willing to keep on its roll persons who are willing to play deceit or make false declaration. The court cannot impose upon the employer the employee who admittedly has adopted unfair means and made false declarations under his own attestation. I do not think that the punishment is so disproportionate to the offence that it shocks the conscious of the court. Thus, once the applicants produced invalid driving licences and mentioned particulars thereof in the application form to secure employment in Delhi Police, they certainly indulged in fraudulent Act. In the circumstances, we decline to interfere with the impugned order. It would be open to the applicants to make a representation to the Principal Secretary (Transport) of the concerned State regarding the conflicting reports given by the concerned Licencing Authorities on validity of their licences with a prayer to take appropriate action and to grant them relief. If such representation brings any favourable result to them, it would be open to the competent authority, i.e. Dy. Commissioner of Police (Establishment), Police Headquarters to revisit its decision of cancelling their candidature.
51. Subject to the aforementioned observations, all the OAs except the OA No.2912/2012 (Sanjeet Kumar Vs. Commissioner of Police and Ors), are dismissed.
52. In OA 2912/2012 the District Transport Officer, Imphal West sent a letter to Section Officer (J-II) Central Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi. In the said letter, he regretted his first verification regarding driving licence No.208790/MS (A), i.e. the licence was forged. According to him, he could give such report due to indistinct of photocopy of the licence which was manually prepared and the relevant register/record being not traceable /misplaced due to shifting of room. According to him, such verification was a great mistake on the part of his office in as much as the report was prepared based on a photocopy only. It is seen that earlier the office of District Transport Officer Imphal West had given a report that DL No.208790/MS (A) issued in the name of Geetabli Devi D/o Bhino Singh for two wheeler/LMV. In his letter written to the Section Officer of CAT (PB) though he has mentioned that the said DL number is valid, but he has not indicated whether it is HDL issued in the name of the appliant (Sanjeet Kumar) or the licence issued in the name of Geetabli Devi against the aforementioned number is valid. Nevertheless in view of the said letter, which was directed to be taken on record, we deem it appropriate to dispose of the OA with direction to District Transport Officer ( Imphal West) to depute a responsible officer with original record and his own affidavit sworn before Judicial Magistrate to appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Establishment) ( Respondent No.2) within eight weeks. In his affidavit, he would specifically mention the details of particulars of the licence issued to Geetabli Devi and certify the contents of letter No. 5/4/DL/verf/2012 dated 4.10.2012 (ibid) as also comment upon the licence of the applicant. On verification of the record and affidavit to be so produced within eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on the basis of independent enquiry, if any conducted, Respondent No.2 would take fresh view regarding candidature of the applicant as expeditiously as possible preferably within 18 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
OA No. 3127/2013 (MA 2388/2013) Shri Vikash, Age-31, S/o Shri Gajraj R/o Vill-Mandhia Khurd, PO-D.G. :Pura, Distt. Rewari, Haryana, Roll No. 804838. Applicant (By Advocate Shri Sachin Chauhan ) VERSUS
1. Govt. of NCTD, Through the Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi.
2. The Dy. Commissioner of Police, Establishment, Through Commissioner of Police, Police Headquarters, I.P. Estate, M.S.O. Building, New Delhi. Respondents O R D E R ( Honble Mr. A.K.Bhardwaj, Member (J):
On 10.09.2013 when the OA came up for hearing, Mr. Sachin Chauhan, counsel for applicant fairly submitted that the questions of law and facts involved in the present case are exactly identical to those raised in OA 1566/2012 (Ashok Kumar Yadav Vs. The Commissioner of Police) and ors. He requested for disposal of the present OA along with the said OAs.
2. In view of aforementioned/common order passed in OA 1566/2012, interference with the impugned order is declined. The observations made in the aforementioned connected OAs will apply in this case as well.
OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(A.K.Bahrdwaj) ( Sudhir Kumar) Member (J) Member (A) /dkm/sk/