Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Manvir Singh Yadav S/O Rameshwar Singh ... vs Delhi Jal Board on 26 August, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH NEW DELHI Original Application NO.2615/2009 This the 26th day of August, 2010 HONBLE SHRI JUSTICE V. K. BALI, CHAIRMAN HONBLE SHRI L. K. JOSHI, VICE-CHAIRMAN (A) Manvir Singh Yadav S/O Rameshwar Singh Yadav, R/O Village Karimpur, PO Garh Mukteshwar Lohari, Distt. Ghaziabad (UP). Applicant (By Shri Gajender Giri, Advocate ) Versus Delhi Jal Board, Government of NCT of Delhi, Varunalaya PH-II, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. Respondent ( By Shri Nishakant Pandey, Advocate ) O R D E R Justice V. K. Bali, Chairman:
Manvir Singh Yadav, the applicant herein, was engaged as Peon-cum-AMR on muster roll on compassionate grounds vide order dated 7.7.2008. Admittedly, his engagement was subject to verification of character and past antecedents, educational and caste certificates. Inasmuch as, the applicant had not mentioned anything with regard to his arrest, trial and the result thereof, and on police verification received from SHO, Ghaziabad it came to the notice of the respondent that he was arrested and kept in judicial custody from 29.5.2005 to 3.6.2005 and later on sent to judicial custody for about a year on account of his involvement in a murder case vide FIR No.58/2005 u/s 363/366/302/34 and 201 IPC, an in-house enquiry was conducted, wherein the facts as mentioned above were confirmed. The applicant was heard in the matter in person, where he accepted the charge. The enquiry officer submitted his report concluding that the charges of furnishing false information and concealment of material facts stood proved against the applicant. It is because of the facts as mentioned above that the applicant was disengaged from muster roll employment of the respondent Delhi Jal Board by way of penalty, vide order dated 28.7.2009. This is the order under challenge by the applicant in this Original Application filed by him under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Pursuant to notice issued by the Tribunal, the respondent has entered appearance and by filing its counter reply, hotly contested the cause of the applicant. It is not disputed that the applicant filled in the prescribed attestation form. Column 12(i) of the attestation form (Annexure A-3), insofar as the same may be relevant, reads as follows:
(a) Have you even been arrested? Yes/No
(b) Have you ever been prosecuted? Yes/No
(c) Have you ever been under detention? Yes/No It is not in dispute that against the relevant columns the applicant had scored out the word Yes. The fact as contained in the impugned order that the applicant was in police custody for 5-6 days and in judicial custody for about a year, is not in dispute. Even though, it is stated that the applicant was acquitted, judgment of the concerned court acquitting the applicant has not been annexed with the OA, there would be no need to require the parties to place the same on records, even though there is a dispute with regard to honourable acquittal of the applicant, or because the witnesses turning hostile or benefit of doubt having been given to him. The crucial issue is as regards the false declaration by the applicant with regard to his arrest and detention in connection with a serious criminal case.
3. Learned counsel representing the applicant would only contend that the applicant is a semi literate person and would not know English, and inasmuch as, at the time when the applicant had filled in the attestation form, there was no case pending against him, he was under the bona fide belief that scoring out the word Yes in the relevant columns may not be incorrect. For the second contention of the learned counsel as noted above, reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Honble Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Others v Dinesh Kumar [(2008) 3 SCC 222].
4. We have heard the learned counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case. In the context of facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not find any merit in either of the contention of the learned counsel representing the applicant as noted above. If the applicant does not know English, there was no question for him to have scored out the word Yes; he would have left it blank, or else, got the form filled through somebody who may know English. Insofar as, the mistaken belief of the applicant that no case was pending against him is concerned, we may only mention that the relevant columns are not only with regard to pendency of the case. The same are as regards arrest and detention as well. The judgment of the Honble Supreme Court relied upon by the learned counsel has no parity with the facts of the present case. The facts of the cited case reveal that subsequent to registration of FIR against the employee, he had voluntarily appeared before the Magistrate. He was not taken formally into custody. He sought for bail and was granted the same, and was ultimately acquitted. In these circumstances, his appearance before the Magistrate was held by the High Court to be not amounting to arrest. The view of the High Court upholding the statement in the application for appointment that he was never arrested was held to be incorrect. It was held that the employee would be considered to be arrested. The Honble Supreme Court, however, declined to interfere with the direction issued by the High Court to issue appointment order, and held that it was a possible view and did not call for interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. A co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in OA No.997/2010 in the matter of Dheraj v Government of NCT of Delhi, decided on 23.7.2010, in the case of Delhi Jal Board only, held that In view of the clear stipulations, we are not inclined to attach any significance to the pleas of the applicant being unaware of the implications of furnishing false information or suppressing vital information. To hold such a view would tantamount to absolving the delinquent from the legitimate obligations to comply with the terms of the appointment. We are in respectful agreement with the view taken by the co-ordinate Bench.
5. Finding no merit in the present Application we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.
( L. K. Joshi ) ( V. K. Bali ) Vice-Chairman (A) Chairman /as/