GSC with Ms. Akansha Choudhary, Ms. Shweta Shandilya and Mr. Saksham Sethi, Advs v. CHAND SINGH

Judgment

1. As the learned Counsel for the Caveator has entered his appearance, the caveat stands discharged. W.P.(C) 16867/2024

2. The appointment of the respondent to the post of Multi Tasking Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2025 15:12:20 W.P.(C) 16867/2024 Staff1 in the office of the petitioners was cancelled by an order dated 2 July 2021, which reads as under: “SUB: CANCELLATION OF APPOINTMENT Reference the following-

CSF form IV dated 28.07.2018 and 01.12.2018. FIR No. 121 dated 31.03.2014. (i) (ii) (iii) Court Judgement dated 04.05.2015.

2. Vide above documents it is understood that an FIR no. 121 dated 31.03.2014 Under Section 148,149,307,323,324,452 & 506 of IPC was registered against you and you are acquitted by the court of Shri. Rakesh Kadian, Judicial Megistrate 1st Class Court, Panipat vide its order dated 04.05.2015. During recruitment process on 28.02.2018 you have signed a declaration to SSC that you have never been convicted by any court of Law and no criminal case is pending against you. Also in CSF form IV dated 28.07.2018 in Sr. No.13 you have put across and not submitted the details of the criminal case in which you are acquitted by the court of law. Whereas CSF Form IV dated 01.12.2018 you are accepted that you have been arrested and prosecuted. Where as the fact of the case was not revealed by you in the earlier CSF IV form. The order dated 04.05.2015 of Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class 3. Court, Panipat has been examined and it is observed that the Hon'ble court specifically stated that they had no other option but to acquit the accused as brought out in para-12 of the said order dated 04.05.2015 by giving a benefit of doubt. The Hon'ble Court has brought out that the complainant Smt. Reena Devi and the Prosecution witness turned hostile and even during the cross examination nothing came out of the mouth of the witnesses as well as complaint to support the case of the prosecution, as brought out in para-5 & 6 of the order dated 04.05.2015. It has also been observed by the Hon'ble Court in para-10 of the said order dated 04.05.2015 that FIR was registered on the basis of complaint but the complainant did not support the prosecution story and hence was declared hostile.

4. From the above, it is evidently clear that the acquittal of Shri. Chand Singh cannot be treated as a hon'ble acquittal and not on merits and in the hand book for the disciplinary authority it has been stated as under: - Signature Not Verified 1 “MTS” hereinafter Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2025 15:12:20 W.P.(C) 16867/2024 “Where the criminal case ended in acquittal only due to the reason that the prosecution witness turned hostile and there was no decision on merits a division bench of Madras High Court set aside the order of the Tamilnadu Administrative Tribunal and permitted the department to proceed with the charge memo in accordance of the law (Deputy Supdt of Police Sriperampudur Vs W.D. Sekaran2”. In view of the above, considering the fact that your 5. acquittal by the Hon’ble Judicial Magistrate, 1st Class Court, Panlpat, is not on merit as the acquittal of the accused, by giving benefit of doubt. The Competent Authority felt that the department may not issue the formal appointment letter to you for the reasons mentioned above. In view of the above, your Appointment as LDC in this 6. department is hereby cancelled and your dossier was returned to SSC (NWR).

7. This has the approval of Competent Authority. (Dr. Ch Ravinder) AGM (Pers) For General Manager”

3. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the respondent moved the Central Administrative Tribunal3 by way of OA 1431/20224.

4. Before the Tribunal, the specific stand of the respondent was that his acquittal was honourable, though the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class5, in para 12, styled the acquittal as on “benefit of doubt”. We deem it appropriate to reproduce para 12 of the judgment of the learned JMFC, thus: “12. In view of the above said evidence on record, when the complainant and material witnesses have not supported the 2 2006 lab IC 1087 3 “the Tribunal” hereinafter 4 Chand Singh v UOI 5 “JMFC” hereinafter Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2025 15:12:20 W.P.(C) 16867/2024 prosecution story and have turned hostile and there is nothing against the accused, I have no other option but to acquit the accused. Accordingly, the accused are acquitted on the charges leveled against them by giving benefit of doubt. Their bail bonds and surety bonds stand discharged. Case property, if any, be disposed off under rules after awaiting the result of appeal/revision if any. File after compliance be consigned to record room.”

5. Thus, it is clear that the basis for cancellation of the respondent appointment as MTS was only that his acquittal by the learned JMFC was on benefit of doubt and could not, therefore, be treated as an honourable acquittal.

6. A reading of the impugned order reveals that the petitioners had relied on a judgment passed by the High Court of Madras in Deputy Supdt. of Police v W.D. Sekaran. Rather surprisingly, the Tribunal has observed that the said judgment has to be treated as having been rendered in personam, and that it was per incuriam as it was contrary to several decisions of the Supreme Court.

7. In our view, it is not open to the Tribunal to characterise a judgment of a High Court as per incuriam. No doubt, if the Tribunal has, before it, judgments of the Supreme Court which enunciate the law differently from the manner in which the High Court has, it would be open to the Tribunal to follow the judgments of the Supreme Court in preference to that of the High Court. However, we reiterate that the Tribunal cannot hold a judgment of the High Court to be per incuriam.

8. Paras 9 to 12 of the impugned judgment read thus: Signature Not Verified “9. We find that the aforesaid decision of Hon’ble High Court Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2025 15:12:20 W.P.(C) 16867/2024 of Madras was in personam, more particularly in light of the facts narrated wherein the department issued a charge memo. The present case cannot be equated to the decision rendered by Hon’ble High Court of Madras in peculiar facts and circumstance of the said case. Cancellation of appointment is based on the ground that the decision of the Hon’ble High Court of Madras was not honourable and that the decision is rendered per incuriam of the aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. We have also gone through the relevant columns of CSF-4 Forms submitted by the applicant on 28.07.2018 and 01.12.2018, which are reproduced below: - CSF Form – 4 dated 28.07.2018 CSF Form – 4 dated 01.12.2018

13. ्ቄा आपके विरु्ቍ वकसी भी ्቗ायालय में अवभयोग चल रहा है, वहरासत मॕ रऻॕ यॊ ঋोतबॠोधत/ जॏमॊ१नॊ / ऺजॊ ॽई यॊ ोिऺॎ लख़ि ऺॕशॊ आयख़ग िॎ परॎ঴ॊ मॕ भॊग लॕनॕ ऺॕ शोज१त यॊ आयख़ग िॎ परॎ঴ॊ म७ भॊग लॕनॕ ऺॕ शोज१त यॊ अयख़৓ ोियॊ गयॊ ऻॖ। Have prosecuted, detention down/fined/convicted by a court of law for any offence or debarred or disqualified by any Public Service Commission examination/selection? appearing अगर उ्ቈर ऻॊफ़ ऻख़ तख़ िॊनॐनॎ ोऻरॊऺत, जॏमॊ१नॊ, िॊरशॊई, ोगरቸበॊरॎ, ऺिॊ िॊ पॏरॊ ोशशरण द७ Is any case pending against Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2025 15:12:20 W.P.(C) 16867/2024 13 (1) (a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes (b) Have you even been prosecuted? Yes (c) Have you ever kept in detention? No (d) Have you ever been bound down? No (e) Have you ever been fined by a Court of law? No (f) Have you ever been convicted by a Court of Law for any Offence? No (g) Have you ever been debarred from any examination or restricted by any university Any authority/Institution? No educational (h) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified by any you in any court of law at the filling application from? Public Service Commission appearing examination/selection? No (i) Is any case pending against you in any court of law at the filling Attestation Form? No (j) Is any case pending against you in any University/or any educational authority/Institution at the time of filling up this Attestation Form? No (ii) If the answer to any of the above mentioned question is ‘Yes’ give full particulars of the case/arrest/detention/ fine/ conviction/ sentence/punishment, etc. and/or the nature of the case pending Court/University Educational authority, etc. at the time of filling up this form.

10. In comparative analysis of the aforesaid two CSF-4 Forms submitted by the applicant, it is quite clear that the applicant had admitted and disclosed in the column 13 that he had been arrested and prosecuted. However, he was neither fined in the Court of law nor convicted for any offence. At the time of appointment the applicant was not involved in any criminal case. In a recent decision Civil Appeal No. 7935 of 2023 (Arising 11. out of SLP (C) No. 33423 of 2018) Ram Lal Vs. State of Rajasthan6 dated 04.12.2023, the Hon’ble Apex Court had held as under:- Signature Not Verified 6 (2024) 1 SCC 175 Digitally Signed By:AJIT KUMAR Signing Date:11.02.2025 15:12:20 W.P.(C) 16867/2024 “24. What is important to notice is that the Appellate Judge has clearly recorded that in the document Exh. P-3 – original marksheet of the 8th standard, the date of birth was clearly shown as 21.04.1972 and the other documents produced by the prosecution were either letters or a duplicate marksheet. No doubt, the Appellate Judge says that it becomes doubtful whether the date of birth was 21.04.1974 and that the accused was entitled to receive its benefit. However, what we are supposed to see is the substance of the judgment. A reading of the entire judgment clearly indicates that the appellant was acquitted after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and after noticing that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charge [See S. Samuthiram7 (Supra).]

25. Expressions like “benefit of doubt” and “honorably acquitted”, used in judgments are not to be understood as magic incantations. A court of law will not be carried away by the mere use of such terminology. In the present case, the Appellate Judge has recorded that Exh. P-3, the original marksheet carries the date of birth as 21.04.1972 and the same has also been proved by the witnesses examined on behalf of the prosecution. The conclusion that the acquittal in the criminal proceeding was after full consideration of the prosecution evidence and that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the charge can only be arrived at after a reading of the judgment in its entirety. The court in judicial review is obliged to examine the substance of the judgment and not go by the form of expression used.

26. We are satisfied that the findings of the appellate judge in the criminal case clearly indicate that the charge against the appellant was not just, “not proved” - in fact the charge even stood “disproved” by the very prosecution evidence. As held by this Court, a fact is said to be “disproved” when, after considering the matters before it, the court either believes that it does not exist or considers its nonexistence so probable circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it does not exist. A fact is said to be “not proved” when it is neither “proved” nor “disproved” [See Vijayee Singh and Others v. State of U.P.8]. that a prudent man ought, under

27. We are additionally satisfied that in the teeth of the finding of the appellate Judge, the disciplinary proceedings Signature Not Verified