Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Shri Bheem Singh Meena vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 19 November, 2009
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
OA No. 3196/2009
New Delhi, this the 19th day of November, 2009
HONBLE MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER, MEMBER (J)
HONBLE MR. SHAILENDRA PANDEY, MEMBER (A)
Shri Bheem Singh Meena
S/o Shri Kalyan Prasad Meena
Aged about 36 years (DOB: 15.6.1973)
r/o C-68, HIL Colony,
New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110 015
(TGT (Maths) since removed, Govt. Boys
Sec. School, J.J. Colony,
Raghubir Nagar, New Delhi-110 027). ..Applicant
By Advocate: Shri K.M. Singh with Shri R.V. Sinha.
Versus
1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110054
(Through: The Chief Secretary)
2. The Secretary (Education)
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
Delhi-110 054.
3. The Director,
Directorate of Education,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat, Delhi-110 054.
4. The Dy. Director of Education,
Directorate of Education,
District: West-A, New Moti Nagar,
New Delhi-110 015.
5. Shri R.K. Gambhir
Inquiry Officer and Principal,
Govt. Boys Senior Secondary School,
Tagore Garden, New Delhi.
6. The Principal,
Govt. Boys Secondary School,
J.J. Colony, Ragubir Nagar,
New Delhi-110 027. ..Respondents
ORDER
By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Applicant has challenged memorandum dated 28.7.2007 (page 29), enquiry report dated 30.1.2008 (page 41), order dated 19.6.2008 (page 45) whereby he has been removed from service for concealing the material facts in the Attestation Form regarding the criminal case in which he was involved and order dated 1.6.2009 (page 50) whereby his appeal has been rejected. He has further sought a declaration that he is entitled to all the consequential benefits viz. reinstatement in service with continuity of service and arrears of back wages with interest at the rate of 18% per annum till payment thereof.
2. It is submitted by the applicant that he was selected by the Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as DSSSB) and appointed as TGT (Mathematics) vide order dated 7.12.1999. He filled up the Attestation Form on 13.12.1999. In para 11 (b), the question was have you ever been prosecuted. In reply to it, applicant had written No without understanding the meaning and spirit of the question because he has done education in Hindi medium and even in the test conducted by the DSSSB, he had opted for Hindi medium, therefore, he could not understand the meaning of the sentence. Moreover applicant had never undergone any police or judicial custody nor he was sentenced with a fine or imprisonment. On the contrary, he was acquitted by the competent court of law in the said FIR, therefore, the FIR had become non-est in the eyes of law. In these circumstances, he cannot be removed from service on the ground that he had concealed the material facts.
3. He has further submitted that after his appointment, applicant had been working sincerely and with full devotion to his duty. On 24.12.2005, he was again asked to fill up the Attestation Form. He filled up as he had done earlier. At this stage memorandum dated 21.6.2006 was served on him along with letter dated 17.6.2006 which was duly replied by the applicant stating therein that he had forgotten the incident and had been acquitted in the criminal case, therefore, No in response to question 11 (b) was written without any mala fide intention. In spite of clarification given by the applicant, he was issued a show cause notice dated 14.5.2007 to explain why disciplinary proceedings should not be initiated against him as he had suppressed material fact in the Attestation Form regarding his involvement in a criminal case in the court of CJM, Karouli under Section IPC 499/93 and under sections 147, 332, 353, 427, 149 of IPC. In response to it, applicant submitted copy of the judgment dated 2.11.1999 passed by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Karauli in case FIR No. 188/1994 to show that he had already been exonerated of the charges. He submitted that he was absolutely innocent and was implicated unnecessarily in the criminal case, therefore, there is no justification to take any action against him on this ground, yet charge-sheet dated 28.7.2006 was issued to him with the following charge:-
Shri Bhim Singh Meena, TGT (Maths) at the time of his appointment to Directorate of Education, Govt. of NCT of Delhi as TGT, committed gross misconduct in as much as he submitted false information in the Attestation Form given to him by the Department which has resulted in concealment of facts and furnishing of false information and thereby the suppression of material information by him in the Attestation Form.
4. It is submitted by the counsel for the applicant that even the enquiry was not conducted properly as no opportunity was given to the applicant to avail the services of defence assistant nor any questions were put to the applicant nor any witness was called on behalf of the department nor applicant was given opportunity to call his defence witnesses nor Inquiry Officer questioned the applicant on the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence adduced before him, therefore, the whole enquiry is vitiated, as such the order of removal and appellate order is also liable to be quashed on these grounds.
5. We have heard counsel for the applicant and perused the pleadings as well.
6. Charge against the applicant in this case was that at the time of his appointment in the Directorate of Education, Government of NCT of Delhi as TGT (Mathematics), applicant committed gross misconduct inasmuch as he submitted false information in the Attestation Form and concealed the material fact regarding his involvement in a criminal case thus amounting to suppression of material information in the Attestation Form. In the statement of imputation of misconduct it is clarified that at the time of appointment, applicant filled in the Attestation Form and against question No.11, he submitted the information that he has never been arrested, prosecuted, kept under detention, bound down, fined by any court of law or convicted by court of law for any offence and no case is pending against him in any court of law at the time of filling up the Attestation Form. However, when the Attestation Form was sent to the District Magistrate, Karouli, Rajasthan for getting the character and antecedents of applicant verified, the declaration of the applicant at question No.11 of Attestation Form was not found to be correct as District Magistrate, Karouli, Rajasthan, vide his letter dated 7.4.2006 intimated that a case under Section IPC 499/93 and under sections 147, 332, 353, 427, 149 of IPC was registered against Shri Bheem Singh Meena, the applicant herein and charge sheeted vide letter No.42/94 dated 30.4.1994 in the court of CJM Karouli, Rajasthan. Ultimately, he was acquitted on 2.11.1999. This information was not reflected by the applicant in his Attestation Form, which amounts to concealment of facts and suppression of material information in the Attestation Form.
7. Counsel for the applicant strenuously argued that the enquiry was not conducted properly inasmuch as neither any witnesses were called by the prosecution nor any questions were put to the applicant nor he was given any opportunity to call his defence witnesses. However, perusal of the enquiry report shows that 15.11.2007 was fixed by the Inquiry Officer for preliminary hearing with a direction to the charged officer to attend the hearing along with defence assistant, if any, therefore, it cannot be stated that applicant was not advised to engage defence assistant. On 15.11.2007 the Presenting Officer could not attend. Accordingly, the proceedings were adjourned to 19.11.2007. On 19.11.2007, the charged officer admitted that he did not give information regarding FIR against him due to negligence. However, he explained that this was not deliberate and he had put an apology for the same. If is further revealed from the enquiry report that on 27.11.2007 the charge officer filed his written statement once again and he had admitted the charge levelled against him.
8. The law is well settled that once the charge itself is admitted, there is nothing more required to be looked into by the Inquiry Officer. At this juncture it would be relevant to quote from the judgment of Honble Supreme Court in the case of Dharmarathmakara Raibahadur Arcot Ramaswamy Mudaliar Educational Institution Vs. Educational Appellate Tribunal and Another reported in 1999 Vol.7 SCC 37 wherein it was held as follows:-
Giving opportunity is a check and balance concept that no ones right be taken away without giving opportunity or without enquiry where statute so requires, but this is not necessary where allegations/charges are admitted and no possible defence is placed before the authority concerned. No enquiry is necessary when one admits ones violations.
9. In view of above, since in the instant case applicant had admitted the charge, there was no need to call either prosecution/defence witnesses nor it is open to the applicant to say that principles of natural justice have been violated. The only defence taken by the applicant in the enquiry was that the criminal case was fabricated and he had been erroneously implicated in the criminal case. In any case he was later on acquitted by the court. Since he had been acquitted and he was not in Government service at the time of his acquittal, i.e., on 2.11.1999, therefore, he was not aware that this information was required to be given to the department. At best, it was an inadvertant mistake and not at all deliberate or intentional on the part of the applicant.
10. We have gone through the orders passed by the authorities and find that all these facts have been considered by the authorities and they have passed detailed orders giving the reasons why applicants contention cannot be accepted. In judicial review, the scope of interference is very limited. It is now settled law that courts can interfere with decision taking process if it is defective but not in the decision itself because once charge is proved, it is for the authority to decide what punishment should be given.
11. The question of concealment of criminal case has also been considered by the Honble Supreme Court and it has been held as under:-
(i) In Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and Others Vs. Sushil Kumar reported in 1996 (11) SCC 605. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court as follows:-
Verification of the character and antecedents is one of the important criteria to test whether the selected candidate is suitable to a post under the State. Though he was found physically fit, passed the written test and interview and was provisionally selected, on account of his antecedent record, the appointing authority found it not desirable to appoint a person of such record as a Constable to the disciplined force. The view taken by the appointing authority in the background of the case cannot be said to be unwarranted. The tribunal, therefore, was wholly unjustified in giving the direction for reconsideration of his case. Though he was discharged or acquitted of the criminal offences, the same has nothing to do with the question. What would be relevant is the conduct or character of the candidate to be appointed to a service and not the actual result thereof. If the actual result happened to be in a particular way, the law will take care of the consequences.
(ii) Similarly in R. Radhakrishnan Vs. Director General of Police and Others reported in 2008 (1) SCC 660. It was held by the Honble Supreme Court as follows:
The appellant intended to obtain appointment in a uniformed service. The standard expected of a person intended to serve in such a service is different from the one of a person who intended to serve other services. Application for appointment and the verification roll were both in Hindi as also in English. He, therefore, knew and understood the implication of his statement or omission to dis-close a vital information. The fact that in the event such a disclosure had been made, the authority could have verified his character as also suitability of the appointment is not in dispute. It is also not in dispute that the persons who had not made such disclosures and were, thus, similarly situated had not been appointed.
The appellant had suppressed a material fact. In a case of this nature, question of exercising an equitable jurisdiction in his favour would not arise.
(iii) In yet another case in Kendriya Vidyalalay Sangathan and Others Vs. Ram Ratan Yadav reported in 2003 (3) SCC 437 somewhat the same argument was advanced as by the applicant herein that he did not understand the question having studied in Hindi medium. In the said case also in the Attestation Form, it was asked whether he had ever been prosecuted or convicted by court of any offence and if any case was pending against him in any court at the time of filling up the Attestation Form. The respondent therein had replied to both the questions in the negative and certified that the information given by him was correct to the best of his knowledge although a criminal case was pending against him at that time. In the said case also the contention raised by the respondent was that his medium was Hindi throughout, therefore, he did not understand the question correctly. After dealing with all the contentions raised by the appellant therein, it was held by the Honble Supreme Court as follows:-
The object of requiring information in the attestation form and certification thereafter by the candidate was to ascertain and verify the character and antecedents of the respondent as on the date of filing and attestation of the form to judge his suitability to continue in service. Suppression of material information and making a false statement has a clear bearing on the character and antecedents of the respondent in relation to his continuance in service. A candidate having suppressed material information and/or giving false information cannot-claim right to continue in service. The employer having regard to the nature of the employment and all other aspects had discretion to terminate his services, which is made expressly clear in para 9 of the offer of appointment.
It being not in dispute that a criminal case against the respondent was pending on the date when he filled the attestation form, the information given by the respondent as against columns 12 and 13 as "No" is plainly suppression of material information and it is also a false statement. Admittedly, the respondent is holder of B.A., B.Ed, and M.Ed, degrees. Assuming even his medium of instruction was Hindi throughout, no prudent man can accept that he did not study English language at all at any stage of his education. It is also not the case of the respondent that he did not study English at all. If he could understand column nos. 1-11 correctly in the same attestation form, it is difficult to accept his version that he could not correctly understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. Even otherwise, if he could not correctly understand certain English words, in the ordinary course he could have certainly taken help of somebody. This being the position, the Tribunal was right in rejecting the contention of the respondent and the High Court committed a manifest error in accepting the contention that because the medium of instruction of respondent was Hindi, he could not understand the contents of columns 12 and 13. It is not the case that columns 12 and 13 are left blank. The respondent could not have said "no" as against columns 12 and 13 without understanding the contents.
The purpose of seeking information as per columns 12 and 13 was not to find out either the nature or gravity of the offence or the result of a criminal case ultimately. The High Court went wrong in saying that the criminal case had been subsequently withdrawn and that the offences, in which the respondent was alleged to have been involved, were also not of serious nature. In the present case the respondent was to serve as a Physical Education Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya. The character, conduct and antecedent of a teacher will have some impact on the minds of the students of impressionable age. The appellants having considered all the aspects passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. The Tribunal after due consideration rightly recorded a finding of fact in upholding the order of dismissal passed by the appellants. The high Court was clearly in error in upsetting the order of the Tribunal.
12. In view of above. it is now settled law that if a person at the time of appointment in Government service gives a false information or suppresses material fact, no leniency can be shown in such cases specially when warning is given at the top of Attestation Form that if he gives wrong information or conceals material facts, his services would be liable to be terminated.
13. Counsel for the applicant has relied on some judgments given by the Tribunal viz. Vikram Singh Vs. U.O.I. & Others (OA No. 1795/2005) and Shri S.C. Gupta and Others Vs. U.O.I. and Others (OA Nos. 452/2002 and 453/2002). However, since law has been laid down by the Honble Supreme Court, therefore, any judgment given contrary to the Supreme Court judgments, by the Tribunal or Punjab and Haryana High Court would be of no relevance.
14. In the instant case since it is an admitted fact that applicant did not inform the department about the criminal case in which he was involved though ultimately acquitted, it definitely amounts to a misconduct in concealing the material facts and giving the wrong information. Moreover, it was also mentioned in the Attestation Form that if at any stage, it is found that any information/declaration and submission given by the candidate is found false and any information has been concealed, the appointment would be terminated and he would be liable to be proceeded against in the manner deemed fit. If in spite of all these warnings, the applicant had given a false information and had concealed the fact regarding his involvement in a criminal case, the authorities rightly removed him from service vide order dated 19.6.2005. It is noted in the disciplinary authoritys order that in response to the question have you every been prosecuted applicant had specifically written No in the Attestation Form on 2.12.1999 whereas he had been acquitted in the criminal case only on 2.11.1999, i.e. merely a month back, therefore, it cannot be said that he had forgotten about the said criminal case. We would agree with the disciplinary authority that the time gap was not such, due to which applicant could have forgotten about the criminal case. Since applicant had suppressed and concealed the material facts, applicant has rightly been removed from service.
15. In view of above discussion, this case calls for no interference. The same is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself. No order as to costs.
( SHAILENDRA PANDEY) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh