Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. The applicant also referred at page no. 61 of the aforesaid MA and argued that observations in the prescription report was made by the doctors concerned that "Pt. is fit to work. Avoid heavy work and travelling. Light duty preferred."

5. Referring to the aforesaid facts and observations recorded in the prescription report, the applicant further argued that when the Compliance affidavit was filed, a false fact has been mentioned in the affidavit showing that the applicant was examined by the Medical Board and was found fit to resume his duty. It is further argued that the last portion of the recommendations were not mentioned in the Compliance affidavit, thus, a false affidavit concocting the facts has been mentioned which attracts the provisions contained in section 193, 219 and 228 of IPC as contained in section 30 of the Administrative Tribunals Act. The applicant has also referred the written submissions filed by him and further argued that since the contempt petition is pending before this Tribunal, an affidavit has been filed in it making false facts. Thus, the application be allowed and inquiry be made against the respondents and other officials who have filed a false affidavit. The applicant has also referred the provisions of section 340 of Cr.PC. He further argued that section 71 of IPC is also attracted in the matter. In conclusion, he argued that the notice may be issued to the opposite parties/respondents and other officials and to inquire the matter taking the recourse of the provisions contained in section 340 Cr.PC and matter be referred to the competent court for trial of the accused person(s) who have committed the aforesaid offence. In order to substantiate his claim, the applicant has also referred the entire documents including the judgment and order passed by Hon'ble High Court in Writ-A no. 30680 of 2012.

6. Since, the present application has been preferred by the applicant under section 340 Cr. PC, therefore there is no need to hear the respondents at this stage until and unless they are summoned or notice after forming an opinion regarding a prima facie case is made out, otherwise they have no locus to agitate the facts as mentioned in the application of the applicant file under section 340 Cr.PC at this stage.

7. We have considered the entire facts and circumstances of the case in the light of the submissions raised on behalf of the applicant and have also gone through the entire records available on the file.

(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,--

(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;

(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.

(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195.

10. It is evident from the record that OA no. 672 of 2019 was decided vide judgment and order dated 04.07.2019 wherein a specific direction has been given to the respondents to pass a reasoned and speaking order on the representation of the applicant. It also transpires that the respondents have passed a reasoned and speaking order on 09.10.2019 disposing of the representation of the applicant, which has been filed along with the Compliance affidavit, wherein specific fact has been mentioned in para 5 thereof that the applicant was medically examined by the Railway Board and was found fit to resume duty. The applicant's submission is that the entire facts as recommended/observed by the doctors of AIIMS New Delhi in the prescription report has not been placed before this Tribunal in the Compliance affidavit and instead thereof only few part of the same was taken into consideration by the Railway Board, which was constituted at the command of the respondents and the entire recommendations of the doctors of AIIMS New Delhi have not been taken into consideration by the respondents in toto. If the submission raised on behalf of the applicant is taken into consideration in the light of the fact as mentioned in para 5 of the Compliance affidavit as well as the provisions contained under section 340 Cr.PC, it emerges out that the facts as mentioned in para 5 of the Compliance affidavit is based on the observations as recorded by the doctors of AIIMS New Delhi in their prescription report which has already been annexed in this application.

11. Certainly doctors of AIIMS New Delhi recommended that "Pt. is fit to work. Avoid heavy work and travelling. Light duty preferred." If the Compliance affidavit has been filed mentioning therein that the applicant was found fit to resume his duty and the same is compared with the facts as mentioned in the prescription report, it cannot be said that the fact as mentioned in the Compliance affidavit is false and the facts as mentioned in the prescription report as prepared at AIIMS New Delhi has been twisted. None of the provisions of IPC as disclosed by the applicant in his application are attracted. The inquiry, taking the recourse to the provisions of section 340 Cr.PC has to be made on the satisfaction by the Tribunal that a prima-facie case to proceed under section 340 Cr.PC is made out. Facts as mentioned in the Compliance affidavit cannot be said to be false as doctors of AIIMS New Delhi has also mentioned in their prescription report that "Pt. is fit to work. Avoid heavy work and travelling. Light duty preferred." Further, the Medical Board constituted at the respondents' level consisting of five members, has also declared that the applicant is fit to resume his duty. Thus, the facts as disclosed in the Compliance affidavit cannot be said to be false. In these circumstances, no need arises to proceed in the inquiry taking the recourse to the provisions contained in section 340 Cr.PC and therefore, the prayer for summoning of the documents are also not necessitated. Vide this Tribunal's order dated 21.12.2022, the associated CCPs were directed to be listed together.