Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
B L Meena vs Comm. Of Police on 21 October, 2016
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 3345/2012
Pronounced on 21.10.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M.S.Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. V.N.Gaur, Member (A)
Babu Lal Meena,
Aged about 39 years
Ex. Cook of Delhi Police,
S/o Shri Jhansi Ram Meena,
R/o VPO: Surer, Tehsil: Rajgarh,
Distt: Alwar, Rajasthan. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Mr Anil Singal)
VERSUS
Govt. of NCTD through
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Headquarters, I.P.Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Commissioner of Police (Security),
Security Main lines, Vinay Marg,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mr. Amit Anand )
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. V.N.Gaur, Member (A):
The applicant in this OA is challenging the order of his dismissal as Cook in Delhi Police dated 1.09.1998 and the order dated 2.04.2012 by which his representation submitted against the order of his dismissal was rejected.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents had invited names of eligible candidates from different Employment Exchange for recruitment to one post (ST) of Cook for Security 2 OA No.3345/2012 Unit. Among the six names that were received one candidate was Shri Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Ram Dayal Meena R/o RZ- 49B, West Vashista Park, Opp. Pankha Road, New Delhi. According to the counter filed by the respondents all the six candidates were invited for interview on 25.10.1996 but only one person, namely Shri Babu Lal Meena reported on that day. One more opportunity was given to the candidates by sending fresh letters and fixing the date for interview on 8.11.1996. The candidates were asked to bring with them (i) proof of age, (ii) education, diploma, if any, (iii) proof of caste ST, (iv) Original Employment Exchange Card and (v) experience, if any. On 8.11.1996 again only one candidate Shri Babu Lal Meena appeared without carrying with him the required documents. The Selection Committee recommended his name and the applicant finally joined Delhi Police on 19.03.1997. He was again directed to submit the originals of the certificate of class-V and employment card vide letter dated 20.10.1997. The applicant had earlier submitted a duplicate copy of employment card bearing registration no. NG/131/95 NCO code No. 520:20 issued by Zonal Employment Officer, EI&AB, Najafgarh, New Delhi.
3. In the meantime, a complaint was received from Shri Babu Lal Meena S/o Sh. Ram Dayal Meena R/o 49B, Vashist Park, Opp. Pankha Road, Gali No. 23, New Delhi on 6.10.1997 alleging that the person who got appointment as Cook was Shri Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Jhansi Ram Meena who had obtained employment in the complainant's name on the basis of a forged employment registration card. The matter was enquired into by 3 OA No.3345/2012 the respondents and on the basis of the same, the applicant was terminated from service under the provision of sub-rule 1 of Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 vide order dated 1.09.1998. His representation dated 14.09.1998 was also rejected. A criminal case FIR No.338/98 dated 7.10.1998 under Section 420/468/471 IPC PS Chanakya Puri, New Delhi was also registered by the Department. The criminal case was finalized vide order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi District dated 27.06.2011 in which the applicant was acquitted. The applicant filed a representation dated 30.08.2011 on 14.02.2012 (para 4.4 of OA), requesting the respondents to review its order dated 01.09.1998 which was rejected vide order dated 2.04.2012.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the order of termination passed by the respondents is actually a punishment order without following the due procedure laid down in the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1965 as well as the principles of natural justice. The order is stigmatic in nature which could not have been passed by respondents without conducting a proper departmental enquiry. However, following the acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case filed on the same allegations the order of dismissal, which was passed under the garb of termination, has to be now reviewed by the respondents as provided in Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980. According to the learned counsel once in the criminal trial, the charge could not be established, it is settled law that the department cannot impose punishment on 4 OA No.3345/2012 the Government servant on the same charge to be proved on the basis of same evidence. It was further argued that the respondents have violated the principles of natural justice and Article 311 of the Constitution of India as there was no ground given in the show cause notice for termination/dismissal and thus the applicant was given no opportunity to defend himself. The respondents had illegally adopted the shortcut method of resorting to Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. In fact, as provided in the OMs 4.09.1964, 29.11.1966 and 19.9.1975 issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, the respondents should have initiated disciplinary action against the applicant only after the criminal case had been finalized. Now that the charge of impersonation cheating etc. against the applicant could not be established in the Court, the order of the respondents dismissing the applicant cannot be legally sustained. Rule 12 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 also requires that following the acquittal of an employee, the disciplinary authority should review the order of punishment. The learned counsel also argued that the applicant had raised a number of contentions in his representation dated 30.08.2011 but the respondents in their order dated 2.04.2012 had not considered any of these contentions and passed the order in a mechanical manner without application of mind.
5. The learned counsel relied on G.M.Tank Vs. State of Gujarat (2006) 5 Scale 582 and Sukhdev Singh Vs. GNCTD (OA 2816/2008) dated 18.2.2011.
5 OA No.3345/2012
6. The learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the order of termination of the applicant (impugned) has been issued under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965. No stigma has been attached in the aforesaid order and it is only a termination simpliciter in accordance with the rules. The respondents had received a complaint from one Shri Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Dayal Meena alleging that a person of the same name but different parentage had got appointment through misrepresentation and forged document. The matter was enquired into departmentally and the complaint was found to be true. It was established that the applicant was not the same person whose name interview letter was issued. Having come to such conclusion, the respondents terminated the services of the applicant and in respect of a temporary Government servant no disciplinary proceeding needs to be drawn to enquire into the allegations. According to the learned counsel, the acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case has nothing to do with the action of the respondents. The allegations in the FIR were with regard to forgery, cheating and impersonation and the charge could not be established by the prosecution before the learned Court. Thus, after his acquittal also the fact remains that the applicant is not the person who was called for interview for the post of Cook in 1996. The judgment of the criminal Court, therefore, does not necessitate review of the order dated 1.09.1998 and for the same reason the Rule 12 of the Delhi Police (Punishment and 6 OA No.3345/2012 Appeal) Rules as well as the judgments cited by the applicant would not be relevant.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The main argument of the learned counsel for the applicant was that order dated 1.09.1998 apparently issued under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules, being stigmatic in nature, could not have been issued without conducting disciplinary proceeding and giving opportunity to the applicant to defend himself. We are not persuaded by this argument as the order dated 1.09.1998 at the face of it, does not say anything that can be termed as stigmatic. For the sake of easy reference, the order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"In pursuance of the provision of Sub Rule (1) of Rule (5) of C.S.S.(temporary services) Rules 1965.I Mahabir Singh, Dy. Commissioner of Police, Security, New Delhi hereby terminate forthwith services of Cook Babu Lal Meena, No. 283/C and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of his pay plus allowances for the period of month's notice at the same rates at which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service.
He should deposit all Govt. belongings in his possession before leaving the department."
7. In case the applicant felt that the order was stigmatic, the appropriate course of action for him was to challenge it after his representation dated 14.09.1998 had been rejected as the aforementioned order bears no relationship with the criminal case filed against the applicant.
8. Another argument of the learned counsel for the applicant is that after the acquittal of the applicant, the respondents ought to have reviewed the order of termination as required by Rule 12 7 OA No.3345/2012 of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 and the ratio of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in G.M.Tank (supra). It is noticed that the FIR 338/98 PS Chanakya Puri was filed against the applicant under section 420/468/471 i.e. cheating, forgery for the purpose of cheating and using a forged document as genuine. All these offences under the IPC are against the State. The Court did not find any evidence to support the case of prosecution that the applicant indulged in any of these crimes of cheating, forgery and impersonation. On the other hand the respondents were prompted to act against the applicant because he was not the person whose name had been sponsored by the Employment Exchange i.e. Shri Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Ram Dayal Meena and was called for interview. It is an admitted fact that the applicant is Babu Lal Meena S/o Shri Jhansi Ram Meena. The respondents had conducted detailed verification, a copy of which has been submitted by the respondents along with their counter reply (Annexure R-7). Obviously the consideration before the respondents was not so much whether the applicant had intentionally used forged documents in order to cheat the department but the fact that the applicant was not the real person who had been called for interview.
9. With a view to satisfy ourselves whether the order dated 1.09.1998 was a termination simpliciter or it was an order of dismissal "in the garb of termination" as alleged by the learned counsel for the applicant, the respondents were asked to produce the original records. A perusal of the records show that 8 OA No.3345/2012 the department conducted an internal verification in which the applicant had also admitted that he was misguided by one Giri Raj Meena who had taken some money from him for arranging employment. He was aware of the discrepancy in the name of father mentioned in the interview call letter. He had also admitted that he did not know how his Employment card was made. The report of the internal verification and the proceedings on the noting side of the file indicate that though there was forgery and cheating involved in the appointment of the applicant, the applicant himself was not blamed for the same. The internal verification report stated that "the deception and forgery was masterminded by Giri Raj Meena and some others"
and the recommended registration of a criminal case for forgery and cheating against "perpetrators of this deception". The records, therefore, do not show that there was any intention to terminate the applicant as a measure of punishment.
10. Another argument put forward by the applicant is that the order passed by the respondents on 2.04.2012 on the representation of the applicant dated 30.08.2011 is not a speaking order. It is noticed that the applicant was terminated under Rule 5 of CCS (Temporary Services) Rules and he had availed of the opportunity of submitting a representation on 14.4.1998. The respondents had passed a detailed order on 23.11.1998 dealing with all his contentions. Further, any reply of the respondents at this stage would not change the admitted fact 9 OA No.3345/2012 that the applicant is not the person who was originally called for the interview for the post of cook.
11. In the light of the foregoing discussion and the reasons stated, we do not find any merit in the OA and the same is dismissed. No costs.
(V.N.Gaur) (Justice M.S.Sullar) Member (A) Member (J) 'sk'