Central Administrative Tribunal - Jodhpur
Bal Ram Meena vs M/O Railways on 5 January, 2026
1
Reportable
290/00317/2015
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR
Original Application No. 290/00317/2015
Pronounced on : 05.01.2026
Reserved on : 13.11.2025
CORAM
HON'BLE Mr JUSTICE RAMESHWAR VYAS, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE Dr AMIT SAHAI, MEMBER (A)
Bal Ram son of Siya Ram, age 34 years, resident of Katkar,
Tehsil Hindaun City, District karauli.
......Applicant
By Advocate : Mr Ajay Kumar Kaushik.
Versus
1. Union of India through General Manager, Northern
Western Railway, Jaipur.
2. Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (Recruitment), Railway
Recruitment Room, Durgapura Station, Jaipur.
3. Assistant Personnel Officer (Recruitment and Training),
Railway Recruitment Room, Durgapura Station, Jaipur.
4. Divisional Railway Manager, Northern Western Railway,
Jodhpur.
......Respondents
By Advocate : Mr B.L. Tiwari.
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL
SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74
5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07
8c, PostalCode=342006, S=
H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER=
F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F
3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E
A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI
SHAKHI
Reason: I am the author of this
document
Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30'
Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0
2
Reportable
290/00317/2015
ORDER
Per : Hon'ble Mr Justice Rameshwar Vyas Being aggrieved with the action of the respondents in not providing the applicant appointment on the post of Trackman, the applicant has preferred this OA with a prayer to issue direction against the respondents to provide him appointment on the above post.
2. The facts necessary to adjudicate this OA are as under:-
2.1 North Western Railway issued Employment Notice 02/2010 (Annex. A/1) inviting applications for various posts of Group D. The applicant applied for the post of Trackman and after getting admission card, he cleared the written test and the physical efficiency test. Thereafter, he was called for document verification on 12.01.2013 vide information dated 03.06.2012 (Annex. A/5). He was also called for a medical examination vide letter dated 12.01.2013 (Annex. A/6). The applicant was informed vide letter dated 08.04.2013 that he has been selected for the post of Engineering/Trackman in the pay band Rs 5200-
20200 with grade pay of Rs 1800/-.
2.2 Thereafter, the applicant was asked to fill up attestation form regarding his character & antecedents, wherein, on 22.04.2013, he disclosed that he has been acquitted by the Court on 29.11.2006 in case No. 844/2004 against which revision is pending before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court. Information provided by him in attestation form was got verified by the Collector & District Magistrate, Karauli through District Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 3 Reportable 290/00317/2015 Police Superintendent. Vide letter dated 05.06.2013 (Annex. A/9), office of the Collector & District Magistrate, Karauli informed the DRM, NWR Jodhpur to the effect that case No. 844/04 under Section 304B, 120B IPC was registered against the applicant in Police Station Hindaun, which filed charge sheet in Court on 05.05.2005. He was acquitted from the charges by the Court on 29.11.2006. The above information by the Collector & District Magistrate, Karauli was provided on the basis of information received from District Police Superintendent vide letter No. 6815 dated 23.05.2013.
2.3 Thereafter, vide letter dated 17.07.2013 (Annex. A/10), the applicant was asked to furnish a certified copy of judgment dated 29.11.2006 and to clarify whether the Govt filed any further appeal against the said judgment or not and in case appeal is filed then inform the result of the same otherwise obtain in writing from the Court and furnish the information that no appeal is filed against the judgment. The applicant furnished certified copy of judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Court and the oral information received from the clerk of the court vide letter dated 26.07.2013. Not satisfied with the above information the DRM, NWR, Jodhpur vide letter dated 05.08.2013 (Annex. A/12), asked the applicant to clarify the position in the following manner:-
"उपरो त संद भत प क अनप ु ालना म आपने यायालय के नणय दनांक 29-11-06 क स या पत त इस कायालय म तत ु क है । इस संबंध म लेख है क आपने वयं अपने च र ससं याकन प म ड वजन अपील हाई कोट जयपरु म चलने का उ लेख कया है अब आपका कहना है क कोई ड वजन अपील नह ं चल रह है ऐसा य इस संबंध म आज Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 4 Reportable 290/00317/2015 अपना प ट करण शी इस कायालय म तत ु करे तथा साथ पु लस वे र फकेशन का नणय क अपील से अगर कोई संबंध है तो Revision के न बर व वतमान ि थ त से अवगत करवाये।"
2.4 The respondents vide another communication dated 03.12.2013 (Annex. A/13) reiterated the contents of the previous communication and asked the applicant to furnish information within 15 days from the receipt of the letter otherwise the proceedings of his appointment shall be closed. In response to the above letter, the applicant vide letter dated 20.12.2013 (Annex. A/14) clarified the stand in categorical terms that revision against the order of the acquittal is pending before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur. He further submitted that the SB Criminal Revision Petition No. 1471/2006 is in due course. Thereafter, again the respondents vide letter dated 24.09.2014 (Annex. A/14) asked the applicant to clarify whether any stay order has been granted by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court against the judgment dated 29.11.2006 passed by the Criminal Court so that decision to appoint the applicant may be taken. In response to the above, the applicant filed an affidavit dated 05.11.2014 (Annex. A/16) to the effect that no stay order has been passed by the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court against the order of acquittal.
2.5 After filing of affidavit by the applicant, no response has been given by the respondent-department in this regard. The appointment of the applicant after his selection has been withheld for no valid reason. With the above facts, the applicant has assailed the action of the respondents in not giving him appointment after his due selection.
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRALSUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 5 Reportable 290/00317/2015 2.6 As per reply filed by the respondents, in the attestation form the applicant made contradictory statements and, in his letter, dated 26.07.2013 tried to conceal the fact of Revision Petition which amounts to his disqualification. The applicant has misrepresented the facts contrary to his own statement in the attestation form. Contradicting the claim of the applicant, the respondents prayed to dismiss the OA.
2.7 The applicant filed rejoinder wherein in support of his claim he referred to some judicial verdicts.
3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that after his selection while fulfilling the formalities, the applicant filled up attestation form wherein he disclosed the fact of prosecution lodged against him. In that form, he disclosed that in criminal case No. 844/2004, he has been acquitted by the Criminal Court on 29.11.2006 (copy enclosed) against which revision is pending before the High Court Jaipur. Learned counsel for the applicant contended that he did not conceal any fact in attestation form as also in subsequent communication, despite that, the respondents did not take steps to give him appointment on the post of Trackman. Learned counsel submitted that pendency of criminal revision petition in the High Court cannot be made a ground to deny him the appointment and the same also cannot be treated as pendency of criminal proceedings against the applicant. Even in case of pendency of criminal case against the applicant cannot Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 6 Reportable 290/00317/2015 be made ground to deny him appointment. In support of his arguments, he relied upon the following judgments:
(i) S. Rajagopal v The Registrar CAT & Ors, Writ Petition No. 18949/2014 decided by Hon'ble Madras High Court on 27.08.2015;
(ii) Mahendra Singh Rathore v State of Rajasthan & Anr, S.B. Civil Writ No. 19152/2018 decided by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur on 11.02.2019.
5. On the contrary, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the revision petition against the judgment of criminal court is pending in the Hon'ble High Court. The applicant in his letter dated 26.07.2013 tried to conceal the fact of the Revision petition. He, therefore, prayed to dismiss the OA.
6. Having regard to the arguments made by the parties and material available on record, it emerges that the applicant got selected to the post of Trackman after participating in a written examination and physical efficiency test. He underwent a medical examination vide letter dated 08.04.2013 (Annex. A/7).
It is not in dispute that the criminal case No. 844/2004 against the applicant and other co-accused under Section 304B, 120B IPC was registered on 30.12.2004 in Police Station, Hindaun City wherein police filed charge sheet No. 185 dated 05.05.2006 in the criminal court which after trial, acquitted the applicant from the charges vide judgment dated 29.11.2006. It is also not in dispute that the applicant disclosed this fact and Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 7 Reportable 290/00317/2015 annexed the copy of the judgment passed by the criminal court along with his attestation form. It is not the case of the respondents that the applicant concealed the fact of having faced criminal prosecution. Perusal of attestation form discloses that the fact of pendency of revision petition before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur was also brought on record. It is also not in dispute that in his representation dated 20.12.2013 (Annex. A/14), the applicant discloses that S.B. Criminal Revision Petition No. 1471/2006 is pending in Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur.
It appears that the respondents misinterpreted the letter dated 26.07.2013 by issuing another letter dated 05.08.2013 (Annex. A/12). Perusal of the letter dated 26.07.2013 (Annex. A/11) reveals that he only narrated the reply received from the clerk of court in answer to the query of filing the appeal against the order of acquittal. The respondents in the letter dated 05.08.2013 while misinterpreting the above letter as an explanation from the applicant. Perusal of reply to the OA also suggests that erstwhile learned counsel for the respondents failed to understand the meaning of the contents of communication dated 26.07.2013. The main defence of the respondents is to the effect that the applicant made contradictory statements which are not correct. As correctly informed by learned counsel for the respondents that, the respondents have not rejected the claim of the applicant for appointment but have sought clarifications.
The respondents vide letter dated 03.12.2013 (Annex. A/13) asked the applicant to disclose whether any stay is Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 8 Reportable 290/00317/2015 operating against the judgment passed by the criminal court and that query was also replied on affidavit by the applicant properly making it clear that there is no stay in operation and the revision petition is in due course before the Rajasthan High Court. In letter dated 26.07.2013 (Annex. A/11), the applicant submitted that he inquired from the court with regard to filing of appeal to which he was replied that in case appeal were filed, it would have been mentioned in the verification. Therefore, whatever is written in verification is correct. In spite of the above, the respondents did not take any action to appoint the applicant on the post of Trackman against which he got selected after clearing all examinations and fulfilling formalities.
7. After perusal of various communications issued by the respondents, we are convinced that the respondents acted in an irresponsible manner and raised unnecessary queries that too without understanding the basic rules and law. The respondents should have known that once a revision petition is filed before the Hon'ble High Court against the order of acquittal, the question of filing appeal against the same order does not arise.
The respondents should have been aware that there is no provision of stay against the order of acquittal passed by the competent court. Stay order operates only against the order of conviction in fit cases. Hence, the respondents committed grave error in asking the applicant to disclose the fact of filing of appeal and seeking information whether any stay is operating against the order of acquittal passed by the criminal court. It seems that the respondents were prejudiced by the fact that prosecution under Section 304 B & 120 B of IPC took place Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 9 Reportable 290/00317/2015 against the applicant. The respondents did not go through the judgment passed by the criminal court. From perusal of the judgment, prima-facie it appears that the acquittal of the applicant was clear cut. In spite of his clear-cut acquittal, the respondents were prejudiced by the fact of he being prosecuted in a criminal case involving grave charges. It is not the case of the respondents that he concealed the fact of his having undergone prosecution in the criminal case. Rather, the applicant himself provided the correct information in his attestation from to the effect that "he has been acquitted by the Court on 29.11.2006 in case No. 844/2004 against which revision is pending before the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court." The applicant has also furnished the copy of the revision petition. In spite of the fact that the applicant furnished complete and correct information to the respondents, his case was not processed further for appointment to the post to Trackman. The pendency of revision petition against the order of acquittal cannot be a ground to deny the appointment to a person duly selected after going through the recruitment process.
8. Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in similar matter in the case of Mahendra Singh Rathore (supra) while relying upon the judgment passed in State of Rajasthan v Mukesh Kumar, C.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 500/2016 decided on 06.03.2017 directed the respondents to accord appointment to the petitioner on the post of Constable (General) ignoring pendency of criminal case against him. Even otherwise, pendency of revision petition filed against the order of acquittal before the High Court cannot be Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU= JODHPUR BENCH, Phone= a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0 10 Reportable 290/00317/2015 treated as pendency of any criminal proceedings against the applicant. Though as per Section 378 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, the appeal lies against the order of acquittal but we find no reason on record for filing revision petition against the order instead of an appeal.
In the instant matter, the respondents kept pending the matter for more than 12 years which caused grave injustice to the applicant. The working of the respondents in the present matter shows their reluctance to go into merits of the case on account of not having basic knowledge of the law. The respondents ignored the just and fair claim of the applicant. Hence, the action of the respondents in not providing appointment to the applicant after due selection for the reason of pendency of revision petition against the order of acquittal cannot be sustained in the eyes of law.
9. In the result, while allowing the OA, the respondents are directed to accord appointment to the applicant on the post of Trackman within a period of one month from the date of pronouncement of this order, if he is otherwise not ineligible.
OA stands allowed in terms of above direction with no orders as to costs.
(Amit Sahai) (Rameshwar Vyas)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
ss
Digitally signed by SUDESH SHAKHI
DN: C=IN, O=CENTRAL
SUDES ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, OU=
JODHPUR BENCH, Phone=
a27c6e3b70871625348f2a3c0c55c74 5e5a539aa4870db2699074ca1c35d07 8c, PostalCode=342006, S= H Rajasthan, SERIALNUMBER= F709B6DE94E2153CCFD55F34387F 3BB788E0FF850A83262E2D1BB72E A7ADF651, CN=SUDESH SHAKHI SHAKHI Reason: I am the author of this document Location:
Date: 2026.01.29 16:01:59+05'30' Foxit PDF Reader Version: 2025.1.0