Central Administrative Tribunal - Ernakulam
Zakariya P.P vs Union Territory Of Lakshadweep on 22 August, 2016
Author: P. Gopinath
Bench: P. Gopinath
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
ERNAKULAM BENCH
Original Application No.181/00608/2016
Monday, this the 22nd day of August, 2016
CORAM:
HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE N.K. BALAKRISHNAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
HON'BLE Ms. P. GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER
Zakariya P.P.,
S/o.Dr.S.Koya,
Padipura House, Androth Island,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep - 682 551. . . . Applicant
(By Advocate Mr.Sreekumar G Chellur)
Versus
1. Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
represented by its Administrator,
Kavaratti Island - 682 555.
2. The Administrator,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti - 682 555.
3. Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
Union Territory of Lakshadweep,
Kavaratti - 682 555. . . . Respondents
(By Advocate Mr.S.Radhakrishnan)
This application having been heard on 8th August 2016, the Tribunal
on 22nd August 2016 delivered the following :
ORDER
HON'BLE Ms.P.GOPINATH, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER The applicant, an aspirant to the post of Primary School Teacher, is aggrieved by the denial of employment on the ground that he was arrayed as an accused in a criminal case. The 3 rd respondent conducted selection through the Recruitment Committee for the post of Primary School Teacher under the general category for teaching classes 6-8 in the Education Department. The applicant was placed at Sl.No.1 with Roll No.1024. Accordingly the 3rd respondent issued order dated 3.3.2015 offering the post of the Primary School Teacher in the pay band Rs.9300-34800 with grade pay of Rs.4200 plus admissible allowances at Central Government Rate subject to production of necessary documents in proof of fitness, the education qualification certificate etc. Along with Annexure A-1 an attestation form was also issued for furnishing information include details of previous employment and also furnish information regarding involvement in any criminal case. The applicant submitted his acceptance of the offer along with attestation form on 11.3.2015 to the 3 rd respondent. In the attestation form the applicant also mentioned the details of a criminal case pending against him. Applicant was arrayed as 16 th accused in a pending case No.C.C.No.45 of 2011 on the files of First Class Judicial Magistrate Court, Androth Islands arising out of Crime No.10/2009 registered at Androth Police Station. The offences alleged in the said case are under Section 143, 147, 148, 427, 448, 506 r/w 149 IPC. The allegation in the FIR No.10/2009 is that on 16.4.2009 at about 5:30 pm the accused 1 to 38 unlawfully assembled and accused A1, A2, A8, A12, A19, A22, A23, A24, A32, A37 and A38 threw stones at the defacto complainant's house and caused damage and accused A4 to A7, A11, A13, A15, A18, A21, A26, A28, A31, A33 and A34 trespassed in to the house, damaged household items and furniture and threatened the defacto complainant and her children that they would kill them and thus committed the offences U/S.143, 147, 148, 448, 427, 506 r/w 149 IPC. Only accused A1, A2, A3, A8 and A9 were arrested and released on bail and the other accused were not arrested as they belong to the island and that there is no chance of absconding. A reading of the FIR will make it clear that no overt act is alleged against the applicant who is arrayed as accused No.16.
2. There was yet another crime registered by the Androth Police Station on the same day, that is on 16.4.2009 at 5:30 pm itself wherein the accused are 12 in number. The reading of the complaint in these crimes will demonstrate that these cases were being lodged on political considerations. The case is not involving any offence of moral turpitude so as to make a personnel ineligible for employment even if he is convicted. There is no overt-act alleged against the applicant and there is no person who identified the applicant in connection with aforesaid case. The applicant was not arrested nor was he kept in custody. Applicant was enlarged on bail and there is every possibility for an acquittal in the said case. The respondents however did not allow the applicant to join the service and persons ranked below him were allowed to join. In the circumstance applicant submitted a representation dated 10.3.2015 requesting to permit applicant to join employment. Applicant produces copy of the judgment of this Tribunal in a similar case, wherein this Tribunal have quashed orders of the respondents and directed to appoint the applicant therein as Language Teacher (Arabic) notwithstanding the fact that the applicant is an accused in a pending criminal case. This Tribunal however made clear that 'if the applicant is convicted any case pending against him the respondents are free to take appropriate action against him in accordance with law.'
3. The applicant had earlier approached this Tribunal by filing O.A.43/2015 and the same was disposed of with a direction to the 3 rd respondent to consider Annexure A-3 representation within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, if the applicant so desire and communicate the decision by way of a speaking order. The Tribunal also directed the 3 rd respondent to keep vacant one post of Primary School Teacher until the decision in Annexure A-3 representation is communicated to the applicant. Though more than seven months passed since Annexure A-5 judgment, no action was taken by the respondents in compliance of the direction of this Tribunal. In the meanwhile, one of the co accused in C.C.No.45/2011 filed Crl.MC 3749/2015 to quash the proceedings in C.C.No.45/2011 pending before JFCM Court, Andrott. The High Court had initially stayed all the proceedings in the said case. It is submitted that the High Court subsequently quashed C.C.45/2011 with liberty to the investigating officer to file fresh report. There is also no justification for the respondents to keep the applicant out of employment under the pretext of being accused in criminal case. The relief sought by the applicant is to direct the respondents to appoint him as Primary School Teacher (General Category) Classes 6-8 Group B post in response to his acceptance of the offer vide Annexure A-1.
4. Heard the counsel for the parties and considered the written submissions made. Applicant would argue that persons involved in cases of theft, rape, swindling of money or cases of moral turpitude should be kept away from Government/Public employment. Applicant argues that his character and morals are not suspect as he is the 16 th accused in the case. Further the applicant states that he had submitted information of the pending criminal case in the disclosure form. Applicant cites the case of R.P.Kapur Vs. Pratap Singh 1964 (1) Cri.LJ 224 wherein the Apex Court had held that if a FIR has been recorded against a government servant that he committed a cognizable offence, the truth of the same should be ascertained in an inquiry or trial by the Criminal Court and till then the accused is presumed to be innocent. Applicant argues that pendency of a Criminal Case is no valid ground to hold that he is undesirable to hold the post of a Teacher.
5. The respondents in Annexure A-8 reply given to the applicant stated as follows :
(4) While verifying the attestation forms and the certificates submitted by Shri.Zakariya it was noticed that Shri. Zakariya had admitted that he is accused in a criminal case in the police station, Andrott and the same is under trial before the 1 st Class Judicial Magistrate at Aridrott. In view of the above admission, the issue of order of appointment as Primary School Teacher to Shri.Zakariya was deferred and the records were forwarded to the Additional District Magistrate for detailed verification of the Character and antecedent of the applicant.
(5) Since the nature of offence and the involvement of the applicant in the said crime was not disclosed by the individual, the matter was referred to the Superintendent of Police, UT of Lakshadweep, Kavaratti to verify and inform the nature of offence and the involvement of the applicant etc. in the said crime. The Superintendent of Police vide his letter dated 26.8.2015 informed the department that Shri.Zakariya.P.P. and 37 Others unlawfully assembled on 16.4.2009 with intention to commit riot and damaged the dwelling house of a lady at Andrott by pelting stones and criminally trespassed into the house and caused damage to the household articles and criminally intimidated the complainant and other inmates of the house.
(6) Aggrieved by the denial of appointment to the post of Primary School Teacher, Shri.Zakariya of Andrott Island filed the above referred case for a direction to the respondents to declare him as fit for appointrnent to the post of Primary School Teacher and to issue Order of Appointment.
(7) The Honble CAT, Ernakulam Bench after hearing both the sides has disposed the above case vide its order dated 23rd February, 2016 with the following directions. The operative part of the order is produced as below :-
'.......12. The consideration which may be relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidate. The appointing authority has to focus on this aspect to arrive at a conclusion whether appointment is to be given to the candidate or not. The fact that the post to which the applicant seeks appointment is a post of a teacher which will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Ratan Yadav's case (supra) according to the respondents also may have to be gone by the respondent/respondents when the matter is reconsidered.
13. To sum up the applicant did not suppress any material fact in the attestion form filled up by him. He has truly stated the pendency of the criminal case against him in which he is the 16 th accused. It is not stated whether irrespective of the pendency of this criminal case there is any other report touching upon the character and criminal antecedent of the applicant. That can be independently considered by the respondents, if necessary after getting report for that purpose.
14. Therefore, we direct the respondents/competent among them to reconsider the applicant's claim for appointment as Primary School Teacher taking into consideration all the aspects of the matter. This shall be done by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.....' (8) In view of the above instructions of the Hon'ble CAT Ernakulam Bench, the Administrator, U.T. of Lakshadweep being the appointing authority for the post of Primary School Teacher Group B non gazetted, has considered the entire facts of the case of the applicant with reference to submissions made by him, the report of the Supdt. of Police and the report of detailed verification of character and antecedent etc. of the applicant and observed as under :
(i) Shri.Zakariya.P.P of Andrott island, the applicant in the above OA was selected for the post of Primary School Teacher. A teacher, especially a Primary School Teacher would be looked upon by the children as a role model and as such he should have an impeccable character and good social repute.
(ii) The nature of job/post for which Shri.Zakariya has applied is also a criteria which the Hon'ble Tribunal has examined in detail. It has cited the case of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangthan vs. Ram RatanYadav - 2003 (3) SCC 437, in its judgment, the extract of which is given below :
'The consideration which may be relevant to the case is of the antecedents of the candidates. The appointing authority has to focus on this aspect to arrive at a conclusion whether appointment is to be given to the candidates or not. The fact that the post to which the applicants seeks appointments is a post of a teacher which will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Ratan Yadav Case (Supra) according to the respondents also may have to be gone into by the respondents - respondent when the matter is reconsidered.' Therefore, it is clear that the job to which the applicant has applied cannot be ignored while deciding the matter. The jobs like Teacher, Doctor and Police etc. are jobs which involve a position of responsibility in the society and the incumbents holding such posts should possess absolute integrity. A person with criminal antecedents, criminal background or criminal tendency cannot be considered for appointment as teachers or as members of disciplined force getting training in arms and ammunitions.
(iii) In the case of Shri.Zakariya.P.P. charges have already been framed and the trial is underway. The Ministry of Home Affairs instructions state that, mere pendency/registration of case would not be sufficient to deny appointment and it has to be decided on the basis of merit. However, the instruction issued also state that, those charged with 'causing organized breach' or 'defiance of law involving violence' may be considered undesirable for employment under govt. In the instant case Shri.P.P.Zakiara along with 37 others are charged with unlawful assembly on 16.04.2009 at 1730 hours with intention to commit riot and damaged the dwelling house of one Smt.Kadeejommabi of Andrott, the complainant, by pelting stones, then criminally trespassed into the house, caused damage to household articles and criminally intimidated the complainant and other inmates of the house etc. Therefore, the case of the applicant falls within the ambit of the above clarification issued by the MHA.
(iv) The post of a teacher is a sacrosanct one, with the teacher shouldering the responsibility to mould the minds of the students who are of impressionable age. His attitude and conduct will reflect upon the students, which is why there is so much importance given to the antecedents of the applicant. For the job of a teacher, there should not even be an iota of doubt about the antecedents/character of a person who is to be appointed as a teacher.
(9) Therefore, in view of the above background and factual position as explained, the offer of appointment issued to Shri.Zakariya.P.P of Andrott Island vide Office Order F.No.6/13/2014-Edn./Estt(3)/256 dated 3.3.2015 is hereby cancelled.
(10) The post of Primary School Teacher, now kept vacant in view of the offer of appointment issued to Shri.Zakariya.P.P may be filled as per the recruitment procedure of the Department, to ensure availability of teachers in the concerned school where the post is presently kept vacant.
6. The above speaking order of the respondents explained the reasons as to why the appointment of the applicant is denied. It is admitted that a person accused in a crime cannot be presumed to be guilty of the offence, till he is convicted. It is also not an admission of innocense till so proved. The applicant has applied for the post of teacher, who would in the course of education mould the minds of the students who are of an impressionable age and who may be looking to the teacher, as a role model to emulate.
7. Persons causing organised breach or defiance of law involving violence can not be the role model worthy of emulation. The case charged against the applicant and others are for offences of forming unlawful assembly with the common object to commit rioting and to damage the dwelling house of a person by pelting stones, causing damage to household goods and committing trespass. This attack was made on the residence of a lady. A school is a disciplined institution, wherein in an organised disciplined atmosphere and manner, students are imparted knowledge and education in a calm and peaceful atmosphere. The activities in the above case filed, if imported or transported in the disciplined atmosphere of the school, would have a damaging impact on young minds and may create an impression that in the event of non passing of a class exam or being punished for a school misdemeanour, the same can be countered by creating a scene of riot or violence. A primary impression needed to be imparted in todays society among children is that defiance of law or creating unrest is damaging to both society and the country. Whereas a law abiding citizen is a perfection, it is certainly a quality to be encouraged and certainly looked forward to in a teacher who will be having a role in educating scores of children year after year for a period of 25 years or more. Such long periods of influence on young minds should not be in the hands of persons who though not convicted, has also not been proved innocent. As such we are in agreement with Annexure A-8 reply furnished to the applicant which has considered in detail the circumstances of the case and the reasons for denial of engagement.
8. The stay which directs keeping one post vacant is vacated.
9. In the light of what is stated above, the Original Application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
(Dated this the 22nd day of August 2016)
(P. GOPINATH) (N.K. BALAKRISHNAN)
ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
asp