Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Kapil Yadav vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi on 22 November, 2010
Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench O.A. No. 301/2010 New Delhi, this the 22nd day of November, 2010 Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) Honble Dr. A.K. Mishra, Member (A) Kapil Yadav, No.8669/PTC, (PIS No.28091711) S/o Shri Karamvir Yadav, R/o Village Hasanpur Musorie, PO Khekra, Distt. Baghpat, Uttar Pradesh. Applicant By Advocate : Shri Shyam Babu. Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through its Chief Secretary, Players Building, ITO, New Delhi. 2. Commissioner of Police, Delhi, Police Headquarters, ITO, New Delhi. 3. Principal, Police Training College, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi. .. Respondents By Advocate : Shri Rishi Prakash. O R D E R (ORAL) By Honble Mrs. Meera Chhibber, Member (J) :
Applicant has challenged order dated 11.12.2009 (page 20) whereby his services had been terminated under sub-rule (i) of Rule 5 of the CCS (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965. He has sought a direction to the respondents to reinstate him in service and complete all the other formalities, as required under law and grant him all consequential benefits including seniority, promotion etc. etc.
2. The brief facts, as stated by the applicant, are that he was selected for the post of Constable in the recruitment held by Delhi Police in 2008 and had joined Delhi Police on 8.4.2009. He was sent for basic training at PTC, Jharoda Kalan, New Delhi, where he was issued show cause notice dated 22.10.1009 (page 23) calling upon him to explain as to why his services should not be terminated on the ground that he was involved in the criminal cases:-
FIR No. 313/2007 36/427/323 IPC, PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat (UP).
FIR No. 489/2008 U/S 147/506/427 IPC, PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat (UP).
3. On scrutiny of Application Form and Attestation Form filled by R/Const. Kapil Yadav (Roll No.502452) on 12.5.2008 & 11.01.2009 respectively, it was found that he did not disclose the facts regarding his involvement in a Criminal Case FIR No. 313/2007 u/s 395/436/427/323 IPC, PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat (UP) in these forms. Further, he had concealed the facts in the Attestation Form regarding his involvement in Criminal Cases FIR No. 246-A dated 22.6.2008 u/s 147/148/452/323/307/506 IPC, Police Station Khekra, Distt. Baghpat (UP) and FIR No. 489/2008 u/s 147/506/427 IPC, PS Khekra, Distt. Baghpat (UP) which were registered after filling up of the Application Form but before filling up of Attestation Form despite clear instructions given at the top of these forms that giving any kind of false information or concealing any facts would be treated as disqualification. Besides, he had also submitted a false undertaking at the time of obtaining the offer of appointment letter and succeeded in joining the department by adopting deceitful means. The concealment of facts regarding involvement in the criminal cases clearly reflects his mala fide intention.
4. Applicant gave his reply stating therein clearly that he was not aware of the above three criminal cases because he was not residing at his village Hasanpur Musorie, Baghpat at that time and was residing at his aunts house and preparing for examination through private/correspondence. He had no knowledge about all these cases neither he was called by the police nor any such information to this effect was given to him by PS Haza nor he had ever been arrested. He, therefore, had no knowledge about the police cases. In any case, in the criminal case No.313/2007 final report has been filed on 16.10.2009. In criminal case No.489/2008 applicant has not even been mentioned in the charge sheet. Even others, who were named in the charge sheet, had been acquitted. Similarly in case No.246-A/2008 also no charge sheet has been filed against the applicant, therefore, it is wrong to allege that he had concealed about these criminal cases with a mala fide intention. He had thus requested that show cause notice may be dropped (page 27).
5. It is submitted by the applicant that the disciplinary authority noted in its order that the involvement of applicant was found false by the local police in both the cases yet held that applicant ought to have mentioned these facts in the relevant column of Attestation Form and should not have concealed these facts because he was fully aware of his involvement in the criminal cases and terminated him from service vide order dated 11.12.2009 (page 20). It is against this order that the applicant has filed the present OA.
6. Respondents have opposed this OA. They have stated that the applicant did not disclose facts regarding his involvement in three criminal cases bearing No.FIR 313/2007, FIR 489/2008 and FIR 246-A/2008 in spite of clear instructions given at the top of the application/attestation form to the effect that giving any kind of false information or concealing any facts would be treated as disqualification. Moreover, he had also given a false undertaking at the time of obtaining appointment letter by adopting deceitful means, which shows his mala fide intention. They have thus prayed that the OA may be dismissed.
7. We have heard both the counsel and perused the pleadings also.
8. In reply to the show cause notice applicant had specifically stated that he had no knowledge about these cases as he was residing with his aunt at a different place and not at his village. Moreover, neither he was summoned by the police nor he was arrested in any of the cases nor any information to this effect was given to him. The disciplinary authority terminated his service by observing applicant was aware about these cases but without giving any basis for arriving at this conclusion. It is relevant to note that applicant has annexed with his OA the final report filed by the police in criminal case No.313/2007 under Section 395/436/427/323 IPC in the court of District and Sessions Judge, Baghpat on 16.10.2007 which reads as under:-
7. Property (Weapon) found, who found, whether sent to Magistrate or not? Sir, in brief the case is that the Complainant registered FIR u/s 395/436/427/323 IPC at FIR counter Baghpat Ward No.4. The case relates to this PS, Case No.113/07 was filed. From the enquiry till date no accused has been involved in the case. The case is false and registered due to antagonism. The same along with reports is closed.
9. From above it is clear that this was a false case which was stated to have been registered due to antagonism. Police did not find any truth in the FIR, therefore, mere filing of an FIR cannot be taken as a bar for appointment in an organization specially when applicant has specifically stated, he was not aware about it. Respondents have not placed on record any document to show that applicant was summoned by the police or arrested or any information to that effect was given to him that FIR has been filed against him. We are thus satisfied that the applicant would not be aware about it. Similarly in FIR No.489/2008 applicant has annexed judgment dated 1.8.2009. Perusal of same shows that applicant was not even named as an accused in this case. None of the prosecution witnesses had taken the name of the applicant as an accused. Even those who were named as accused were acquitted from the charge. The accused who were named were Mahender, Praveen, Raghbir and Rikesh meaning thereby that the applicant was not even made an accused in this case, therefore, applicant had no occasion to know about this case. Same is the case with regard to criminal case No.246A/2008. Perusal of page 29H shows that in this report also it was only Mohar Singh, Rikesh and Praveen who were named as accused in the charge sheet. It was specifically mentioned that names of Vijay, Kapil (the applicant) and Lalit have been wrongly involved meaning thereby that in none of these three cases applicant was either charge sheeted or summoned by the court or by even police. Applicant has specifically stated that he was never arrested nor called by the police. Interestingly disciplinary authority has noted in the order dated 11.12.2009 that the involvement of the R/Constable was found false by the local police in both the cases yet has observed these facts should have been mentioned in the relevant columns of Application/Attestation Form. Disciplinary authority has not even discussed how in these circumstances can it be stated that the applicant was aware about these cases. One fails to understand what was the basis for the disciplinary authority to come to the conclusion that the applicant was aware about these cases when the facts as stated above are to the contrary. Simply because some FIR was filed against the applicant on which no cognizance was taken by the police authorities against the applicant after investigation it cannot be stated that he was aware about these criminal cases or had concealed these cases for gaining entry into police service by deceitful means. The respondents seem to have passed the order of termination in a mechanical manner without applying their mind to the facts as mentioned above.
10. In order to satisfy ourselves, we had called for the original records to find out what was the report given by the district police against the applicant. Perusal of the same shows that even in the said report it was clearly mentioned that though an FIR 246A/2008 was registered against the applicant along with other persons under Section 147/148/452/323/307/506/427 IPC but after investigation it was found that no case was made out against the applicant. Charge sheet had been filed with regard to other accused. They had specifically mentioned that name of Kapil (applicant in this case) was wrongly mentioned in the FIR. He is not involved in the above incident. In view of above report, one fails to understand how respondents have come to the conclusion that applicant was aware about the three criminal cases pending against him and how can it be stated that he had obtained appointment in Delhi Police by concealing these facts. The reasoning for terminating applicant is not based on any material, therefore, order dated 11.12.2009 is quashed and set aside. Respondents are directed to allow the applicant to complete his training and pass necessary follow up orders after he completes the training. Applicant would be entitled to get his seniority from the same date when his batch was appointed. However, he would not be entitled to get any back wages as he had not actually performed any duty on the post after he was terminated. Respondents shall pass the necessary orders within 6 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
11. With the above direction, this OA stands disposed of. No costs.
(DR. A.K. MISHRA) (MRS. MEERA CHHIBBER)
Member (A) Member (J)
Rakesh