Central Administrative Tribunal - Jabalpur
Ritesh Dhanuk vs Union Of India on 12 December, 2014
Reserved
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
Original Application No.580 of 2013
Jabalpur, this Friday, the 12th day of December, 2014
SHRI G.P.SINGHAL, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Ritesh Dhanuk, aged about 28 years, S/o late Shri L.P.Dhanuk,
House No. 834, Gali No. 2, Behind Kalimata Mandir, Sadar Bazar,
Jabalpur, Pin-482001 -Applicant
(By Advocate Shri Shailesh Mishra)
V e r s u s
1. Union of India, through its Secretary, Ministry of Defence,
Indian Ordnance Factory, South Block, New Delhi, Pin-110001
2. Ordinance Factory, Through its General Manager,
Chanda (Chandrapur), Maharashtra, Pin-442501 - Respondents
(By Advocate Shri S.K.Mishra)
(date of reserving the order : 05.12.2014)
O R D E R
The applicant has preferred this Original Application for grant of compassionate appointment to him.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the applicant was duly selected for compassionate appointment for the post of Durban on 25.08.2008 and was asked to fill attestation form, which was submitted by him on 23.09.2008. However, on verification of his attestation form through District Magistrate, Jabalpur, it was revealed that Crime No.129/2008, for offences under Sections 294, 323,506 & 34 of the Indian Penal Code (for short IPC), was registered against the applicant in Police Station Cantt, for which he was arrested and charge sheet was filed on 17.11.2008. In the said criminal case the applicant was acquitted by the Court on 20.12.2008 on the ground of mutual compromise. However, in another case under Istgata No.30/08 was filed against him on 20.03.2008 in which applicant was directed to execute bond and a surety of Rs.5000/- vide order dated 22.04.2008. Since these facts were not highlighted by the applicant in the attestation form, the respondents held the applicant unfit for employment under the Government for suppression of factual information in the attestation form and compassionate appointment was refused. The applicant challenged this order by filing Original Application No. 158/2010 before this Tribunal, which was disposed of vide order dated 26.09.2012 (Annexure A-1) with the following observations/directions:-
(8) Therefore, we allow this Original Application and set aside the orders dated 27.02.2009 and 10.04.2009 (Annexure-A/3 & A/4) whereby the applicants candidature for the post of Durban on compassionate ground has been cancelled and his request for consideration for appointment on compassionate ground has been refused. We direct the respondents to reconsider the case of the applicant for compassionate appointment in accordance with the relevant rules and the scheme.
3. In compliance of aforesaid directions of this Tribunal, the respondents again considered the case of the applicant and rejected it vide order dated 05.01.2013 (Annexure A-2).
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that in the impugned order dated 05.01.2013, the respondents have not given any new logic for cancellation of appointment and have simply reiterated the facts and reasons mentioned in their earlier order, which was quashed by this Tribunal vide its order dated 26.09.2012 ibid. Thus, the respondents have in a way, committed contempt of this Tribunal by cancelling the appointment order on the same ground on which they had passed the earlier order, which was quashed by the Tribunal. The act of respondents is similar to what was done in the case of Sandeep Kumar Rajak, in which, this Tribunal vide its order dated 15.09.2014 passed in Original Application No.1036/2012 have imposed cost on the respondents, apart from quashing the orders of the respondents. Therefore, this Original Application also deserves to be disposed of on similar terms.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the applicant was not acquitted in the criminal case and the case against him was decided on the basis of compromise. He has relied upon the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the matters of Commissioner of Police, New Delhi & Anr. vs. Mehar Singh, AIR 2013 SC 2861, wherein their lordships have held that the Screening Committee has power to consider character and antecedent of a candidate and take appropriate decision and the court should not interfere in such matters. In the present case the respondent No.2 has exercised his discretion judicially in a fair manner and did not find the applicant fit for appointment. Thus the Original Application being without any merit deserves to be dismissed.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings of the respective parties and the documents annexed therewith.
7. It is undisputed that earlier rejection of applicants case was on the ground of suppression of factual information by him in the attestation form in columns Nos.12 (i) & (ii), regarding criminal offences filed against him. This order was impugned before this Tribunal in Original Application No. 158/2010 and the action of the respondents was quashed by a Division Bench of this Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2012. In this regard paragraphs 5, 6 & 7 of the said order are reproduced as under:-
(5) It is true that the applicant gave false answers against the queries in para-12 (i) a, b & d of the attestation form and answered in negative i.e. he was never arrested and prosecuted in connection with any offence and he also did not furnish any bond, which was subsequently found to be false, however, indisputably, the applicant was acquitted from the criminal case on the basis of compromise with the complainant and his prosecution was for compoundable offences.
(6) In the matter of Rakesh Kumar Patel (Supra - Vs. Union of India and another W.P.No.8854/2012 decided on 21.8.2012), while considering the identical issue, the Honble High Court has held that composition of an offence under Section 320 (8) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has the effect of acquittal with respect to the offence which has been compounded and since the criminal case related to minor offence, it will be wholly unjust to brand the petitioner as criminal all his life and the respondents should not have cancelled the selection of the petitioner only on the ground of non declaration in the verification about the fact of his criminal case which was registered against the petitioner.
(7) The binding judgment of the Honble High Court is squarely applicable to the fact of the present case also.
8. Now, in the impugned order dated 05.01.2013 (Annexure A-2), respondent No.2 has not mentioned any other reason for cancellation of applicants appointment again. The first 8 paragraphs of the said order simply give history of past action in the matter, and in the last paragraphs i.e. 9 & 10, it is simply mentioned that now, therefore, keeping in view the Government instructions on the subject and also the facts and circumstances of the case and non availability of vacancies under 5% of the direct recruitment as per rules, for compassionate appointment, the case for compassionate appointment of Shri Ritesh can not be considered favourably.
9. Thus, it is apparent that the respondent No. 2 has not rejected the case of the applicant on the ground of either severity of the criminal offences registered against the applicant, or the method of his acquittal under that offence. In fact no other factor was considered by respondent No. 2 in the order dated 05.01.2013 ibid, except for suppression of information in regard to criminal offence in his attestation form, which was also the point of consideration in the earlier order of the respondents and the same was quashed by the order dated 26.09.2012 of this Tribunal.
10. In the case of Mehar Singh (Supra) the criminal case registered against the respondent therein was under Section 143, 341, 323 & 427 of the IPC, wherein Shri Mehar Singh was acquitted as witnesses turned hostile and there was lack of evidence. Therefore, Honble Supreme Court held that tainted candidates, involved in serious case of moral turpitude, when discharged on technical ground or acquitted otherwise than by way of honourable acquittal, cancellation of their candidature can not be faulted. However in para 27 of this order it is mentioned that 27while deciding whether a person against whom a criminal case was registered and who was later acquitted or discharged should be appointed to a post in the police force, what is relevant is the nature of the offence, the extent of his involvement, whether the acquittal was a clean acquittal or an acquittal by giving benefit of doubt because the witnesses turned hostile or because of some serious flaw in the prosecution, and the propensity of such person to indulge in similar activities in future. This decision, in our opinion, can only be taken by the Screening Committee created for that purpose.
11. As against this, in the present case the applicant was accused of offences under Sections 294, 323, 506 & 34 of IPC and the matter was closed on compromise filed by the parties. However, no screening committee has considered the case of the applicant on the basis of severity of offences registered against him and his appointment has simply been cancelled on the ground of suppression of factual information in the attestation form, which was the ground in earlier rejection of his candidature. Thus, after the decision of this Tribunal vide order dated 26.09.2012 in OA No.158/2010, wherein the entire issue of cancellation of compassionate appointment on the ground of suppression of information in attestation form was considered and the orders of respondents dated 27.07.2009 & 10.04.2009 were quashed, the impugned order dated 05.01.2013 ibid of the respondents passed on similar ground can not be sustained.
12. In view of the aforesaid, the Original Application is allowed and the impugned order dated 05.01.2013 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the applicant for grant of compassionate appointment, ignoring the mistake of suppression of information regarding the criminal cases filed against him in the attestation form, within a period of two months from the date of communication of this order. The respondents are further directed to pay cost of Rs.5000/- to the applicant of this rejection.
(G.P.Singhal) Administrative Member rn 5 Sub: compassionate appointment OA 580-2013 Page 5 of 5