Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Coram vs Union Of India on 4 September, 2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH O.A.NO.2496 OF 2014 New Delhi, this the 4th day of September, 2015 CORAM: HONBLE SHRI SUDHIR KUMAR, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMMBER & HONBLE SHRI RAJ VIR SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shiv Kumar, Aged 27 years, s/o Sh.Bhopal Singh, R/o WZ 632/B, Madi Pur Village, New Delhi Applicant (By Advocate: Mr.R.K.Sharma) Vs. 1. Union of India, through General Manager, Northern Railway, Baroda House, Copernicus Marg, New Delhi 110001 2. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Railway, State Entry Road, New Delhi 110001 3. Chief Manager (Works), Passenger & Goods Train Coach Factory, Alam Bagh, Lucknow, UP Respondents (By Advocate: Mr.K.S.Prasad) .. ORDER RAJ VIR SHARMA, MEMBER(J):
The brief facts of the case of the applicant are that consequent upon his selection, as an OBC candidate, by the Railway Recruitment Cell, Northern Railway, he was issued letter, dated 3.5.2013, by respondent no.3 offering him appointment to the post of Helper (Group D) on temporary basis in the Passenger & Goods Train Coach Factory, Alam Bagh, Lucknow, U.P.. By the said letter, the applicant was asked to convey his acceptance of the offer of appointment and to report to the office of respondent no.3, along with original certificate of educational qualification, original Caste Certificate, Character Certificates from two Gazetted Officer, etc. He was also required to fill up and submit Attestation Form. The said offer of appointment was subject to verification of his aforesaid certificates and character/antecedents. Accordingly, he produced the aforesaid certificates and submitted Attestation Form duly filled in by him. Respondent no.3, vide his letter dated 3.6.2013 (Annexure A/1), intimated the applicant that he had mentioned in the Attestation Form that case FIR No.212/10, P.S. I.P.Estate, dated 19.12.2010 under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, was pending against him, and that his appointment to the post of Helper was deferred until finalization of the said case. Being aggrieved thereby, the applicant immediately made a representation to the General Manager, Northern Railway, New Delhi (respondent no.1). In the said representation, the applicant pleaded that on the grounds of registration of an FIR against a person and his arrest by police in connection with that FIR, the said person cannot be denied appointment to a post, for which he has been duly selected. He, therefore, requested respondent no.1 to direct respondent no.3 to allow him to join the service. He also made another representation in June 2014 to respondent no.1 in the matter. There being no response, the applicant filed the present O.A. on 18.7.2014, seeking the following reliefs:
1) To quash and set aside the order dated 03.06.2013.
2) To direct the respondent to appoint the applicant on the post of Group D/Helper/ Khalasi from 03.06.2013 with all consequential benefits.
3) To allow the OA with exemplary costs.
4) To pass any other orders as this Honble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. It is contended by the applicant that in case FIR No.212/10, dated 19.12.2010, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, investigation has not been completed and charge-sheet has not been filed in the Court. Therefore, it cannot be said that a criminal case was pending against him at the relevant point of time. It is also contended by the applicant that mere registration of the said FIR by the police cannot be a valid ground for denying him appointment to the post of Helper. Therefore, the letter dated 3.6.2013 (Annexure A/1) denying appointment to him and/or deferring his appointment until conclusion of the said case, is illegal and liable to be quashed.
2. Opposing the O.A., the respondents have filed a counter reply, wherein it is, inter alia, stated that a panel of 528 candidates was received from RRC/LPNR on 2.4.2013 for appointment to Group D posts in the Passenger & Goods Train Coach Factory, Alam Garh, Lucknow, U.P.. In the said panel, dated 16.3.2013, the applicants name figured at Sl.No.79. As per extant rule, the verification of entries in Attestation Form submitted by the applicant was undertaken by the respondents. In his Attestation Form, the applicant mentioned that a police case FIR No.212/10, dated 19.12.2010, PS I.P.Estate, New Delhi, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, was pending against him. Accordingly, a letter dated 3.6.2013 (Annexure A/1 to the O.A.) was issued by respondent no.3 intimating the applicant that his appointment to the post of Helper was deferred until finalization of the said criminal case. Thereafter, the applicant made a representation dated 21.10.2013 (Annexure R/2), along with a certificate dated 25.9.2013 (Annexure R/3) issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police, West District, New Delhi. In the said representation, he stated that investigation in case FIR No.212/10, I.P.Estate, New Delhi, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, was still pending, and that he was not involved in any criminal case. He, therefore, requested respondent no.3 to reconsider his case and appoint him to the post of Helper. The Assistant Personnel Officer, Passenger & Goods Train Coach Factory, Alam Garh, Lucknow, U.P., vide his letter dated 8.3.2014 (Annexure R/1), requested the S.H.O., P.S. I.P.Estate, District Central Delhi, to confirm the status of the said FIR No.212/10. The S.I. of Police, P.S. I.P.Estate, New Delhi, vide his endorsement, dated 8.3.2014, made on the said Assistant Personnel Officers letter, dated 8.3.2014 (Annexure R/1), reported that investigation in the said case was still pending. The respondents, therefore, submit that the applicant cannot be appointed to the post of Helper, Group D, and the O.A. filed by the applicant deserves to be dismissed.
3. The applicant filed an affidavit on 25.8.2015, along with copy of his application made under the RTI Act, and copy of a letter dated 6.8.2015 issued by S.I., Mohit Malik, P.S. I.P.Estate, New Delhi, giving him the information under the said Act. The relevant portion of the letter dated 6.8.2015 issued by S.I.Mohit Malik, P.S. I.P.Estate, New Delhi, reads thus:
In this regard, it is submitted that a case FIR No.212/10 u/s 420/468/471 IPC has been registered on the complaint of worthy DCP/Estt. PHQ, Delhi Police, wherein accused person namely Shiv Kumar S/o Sh.Bhopal Singh had submitted a forged driving license during the recruitment of Constable (Driver) 2009. The investigation of the case is still pending.
4. Although copy of the said affidavit of the applicant, dated 25.8.2015, along with the enclosures, was served on Mr.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, on 25.8.2015, no affidavit in reply thereto was filed on behalf of the respondents till 1.9.2015 when the O.A. was taken up for final hearing.
5. We have heard Mr. R.K.Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the applicant, and Mr. K.S.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
6. In support of the case of the respondents, Mr.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for them, placed reliance on the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in Jainendra Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh through Principal Secretary, Home & Others, (2012) 8 SCC 748.
7. It is the admitted case of both sides that case FIR No.212/10, dated 19.12.2010, P.S. I.P.Estate, New Delhi, under Sections 420, 468 and 471 IPC, was registered against the applicant on the complaint lodged by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Establishment, D.H.P., Delhi, that the applicant had submitted a forged Driving License during the recruitment of Constables (Driver)-2009, and that investigation in the said case is still pending. It is, thus, clear that charge-sheet has not yet been filed before the court, and cognizance of the offences alleged to have been committed by the applicant has also not yet been taken by the Court. Neither the respondents in their counter reply, nor Mr.K.S.Prasad, learned counsel appearing for them, brought to our notice any rule, instructions, orders, etc., issued by the Railway Board/Government of India, that appointment to a post can be denied to a person, like the applicant, on the ground of mere registration of an FIR against him by the police, or that appointment of such person has to be deferred until conclusion of the case in respect of which FIR has been registered by the police and investigation is pending at the time of making appointment. Therefore, we find substantial force in the contention of the applicant that he has been illegally and arbitrarily denied appointment to the post of Helper (Group D), for which he has been duly selected by the Railways.
8. We have gone through the decision in Jainendra Singhs case (supra), wherein their Lordships were examining the correctness of the judgment passed by the Honble High Court of Allahabad declining to interfere with the order of termination of service of the appellant, after holding that the appellant deliberately concealed the vital information in order to secure employment and subsequent acquittal would not enure to his benefit. The Division Bench of the Honble Supreme Court, after referring to a large number of decisions, found divergent views to have been expressed by coordinate Benches on the points. Therefore, their Lordships referred the issues to a Larger Bench for an authoritative pronouncement. In the instant case, there being no suppression of information by the applicant to secure employment, the decision in Jainendra Singhs case (supra) does not come to the aid of the respondents.
9. In the light of our above discussions, we hold that the impugned letter dated 3.6.2013 (Annexure A/1) issued by respondent no.3 deferring and/or denying appointment of the applicant to the post of Helper in Passenger & Goods Train Coach Factory, Alam Bagh, Lucknow, U.P., is unsustainable and liable to be quashed, and accordingly, the same is quashed. Consequently, respondent no.3 is directed to issue appropriate order appointing the applicant to the post of Group D/Helper/Khalasi and allow him to join the service. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it is ordered that the applicant will be entitled to all service benefits only from the date of his joining the post of Group D/Helper/Khalasi in Passenger & Goods Train Coach Factory, Alam Bagh, Lucknow, U.P.. The respondents shall comply with the direction contained in this order within three months from today.
10. In the result, the O.A. is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.
(RAJ VIR SHARMA) (SUDHIR KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER AN