Krishan Kumar v. Union of India & Ors

G.S. SISTANI, J. (ORAL)

¶1Petitioners in this batch of writ petitions are aggrieved by a common order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal ('Tribunal').

¶2For disposal of this batch of writ petitions, the facts of the case of W.P. (C) 2129/2019 are being noticed for the sake of convenience.

¶3The brief facts according to W.P. (C) 2129/2019 are that an advertisement was published between 3rd and 9th November, 2007 in the Employment News for various vacancies for various posts including the post of Offset Machine Operator. The petitioners applied for the same claiming to fulfil the requisite qualifications and experience.

¶4On 19.12.2007, by a separate memorandum, petitioners were called to participate in the test and interview. On 14.01.2008, offers of appointment were received by the petitioners for the posts of Offset Machine Attendant. In the letter of offer of appointment, the period of probation was fixed as 2 years. The petitioners also claim that during the period of probation, they were rated as 'good' or 'very good'. However, they were shocked to receive a notice of termination dated

23.08.2018, whereby the petitioners were informed that since complaints of large-scale irregularities in the recruitment process were received, the Additional Secretary and Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) of the Ministry was entrusted to investigate the complaints; and in the

investigation, irregularities in the recruitment process were found as per the report of the Additional Secretary and CVO. Accordingly, invoking Rule 5(1) of the CCS (TS) Rules, 1965, notice of one month was issued to the petitioners for termination of their services.

¶5Thereupon, the petitioners filed O.As. before the Tribunal; and while issuing notice in the O.As. so filed, the impugned termination orders were stayed; which O.As. have however been dismissed by the impugned order.

¶6It is the stand of the learned Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners that during the pendency of the O.As., a specific direction was issued to the respondents to produce a signed copy of the Additional Secretary & CVO's report. It is urged before us that despite orders dated 4th and 6th December, 2018, a signed copy of the report was not produced. Although, it is clarified that a true copy of the report was produced claiming the same to be a certified copy, but not even a photocopy of the signed copy was ever produced.

¶7The grievance of the learned counsels appearing for the petitioners is that the Tribunal has failed to take into consideration the submissions made by the counsel appearing for the applicants, on the merits of the matter. The Tribunal has simply dismissed all the O.As. for the purported reason that the Tribunal had dealt similarly with a matter arising out of an O.A. filed by the employees of Govt. of India Presses, Aligarh and Nilokheri, which order was upheld by the High Court and the SLPs thereafter were also dismissed by the Supreme Court of India. In the Tribunal's view, the petitioners' O.As. were similar to the matter dealt with earlier.

¶8Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that a perusal of the report would leave no room for doubt that there were large scale irregularities in the recruitment process; and the Additional Secretary and CVO of the Ministry was entrusted to investigate and submit a report on such irregularities. The complaints were taken into consideration; material was examined; and accordingly a report was furnished. Thus, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order dated 21.02.2019 passed by the Tribunal, which would require interference by way of the present proceeding.

¶9We have heard learned counsels for the parties. The Tribunal has placed strong reliance on the observations made by the Tribunal in the judgment passed in batch matters with the lead matter titled Manjit Sharma and others Vs. Union of India, O.A. No.1554/2012. In paras 7, 8 and 9 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has extensively quoted from the judgment rendered in Manjit Sharma (supra). In para 10 of the impugned order, the Tribunal has agreed with the submissions of learned counsel for the respondents that the only difference in respect of the investigation report of Aligarh and Nilokheri Presses was that the said reports were of the year 2010 and the report in respect of the Faridabad Press (subject matter of the present writ petitions) was submitted in the year 2015. Thereafter a portion of the report has been quoted. No doubt, the Tribunal in para 13 has noted the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners, that the investigation reports in respect of Aligarh, Nilokheri and Faridabad Presses are different and hence a common judgment in the earlier matter i.e.

Manjit Sharma (supra) would not apply to the present batch of matters, however, this submission has been rejected by the Tribunal.

¶10Mr. Gupta and Mr. J.P. Sengh, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners have submitted that in fact no opportunity was granted by the Tribunal to enable the counsel to point-out the differences between these three reports. It is pointed-out that although the examinations for the Nilokheri Press were held between 2007 and 2008 which is the same period as that of Aligarh and Faridabad, however, there were different tests, different advertisements, different bodies, a different selection process and different reports by different persons. Additionally, it is submitted before us that the main reason for scrapping the examinations pertaining to the Nilokheri and Aligarh Presses was that the selection committee was changed during the selection process viz. different members participated in the earlier selection process; different members participated in the final round of selection; and the final committee members therefore marked persons who were never examined by them.

¶11Reliance is placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on clause 5.4.2.(i) of the investigation report, extracted at page 268 of the paper book, which reads as under : "5.4.2. Specific instances of alleged irregularities :-

(i) In the final selection list displayed on the Notice Board on 31.03.2008 lot of manipulation from first phase of group D interview have been noticed. The minutes did not bear the signatures of two members of Old Selection Board. No marks were given to any candidate on which the changed Board could have taken the right decision for selection."

¶12Reliance is also placed by learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners on 5.4.4 'Findings', which reads as under : "5.4.4 Findings :- The candidates appeared for interviews in respect of 'Labourers' category in two spells, first on 22, 23 & 24 February and second on 28th and 30th March, 2008. Neither a marking sheet nor signed recommendations by Members of the DPC which conducted the interviews from 22nd to 24th February 2008 were available. Subsequently composition of the Committee was changed by replacing two members which later conducted the interviews on 28th and 30th March, 2008. However; the final list of the selected candidates was prepared after the conclusion of the interviews in the second spell without a marking sheet or signed recommendations by the Committee which conducted the interviews in the first spell. It is not clear on what basis the Members of the Recruitment Board who have put their signatures on the final list of selected candidates have done so. Based on the above facts it can be concluded that the allegation of irregularities having been committed in respect of finalization of minutes of the meeting of the Recruitment Board for selection of LABOURER category of candidates is true and the Members of the Recruitment Board who signed the Minutes of Meeting should be held responsible for that."

¶13The learned Senior Counsel submit that today the short question which would arise for consideration is not on the merit of the matters but whether fair opportunity of hearing was afforded by the Tribunal to enable the petitioners to state their case; and whether the Tribunal was right in dismissing the O.As. solely on the ground of two earlier reports, which, according to the petitioners, are materially different.

¶14Having regard to the submissions so made, more particularly the points of difference which we have noticed in the afore-going paras, we are of the view that the earlier reports cannot be conclusive and

would not be binding with respect to subsequent examination conducted for a different printing press and the subsequent report would have to stand on its own legs even if, as has been urged by the counsel appearing for the respondents, the irregularities are somewhat similar and the examinations were also held in the same time period.

¶15For the reasons stated above, we deem it appropriate to remand all these matters back to the Tribunal for fresh hearing so that the objections pertaining to the report of examination held for the posts at Faridabad Press is examined objectively on its own merits. Considering the submission made by the counsel for the respondents that the allegations are very serious in nature, despite the Tribunal's heavy cause list, we request the Tribunal to take an early decision in the matter. The Tribunal will notice the submissions of the counsels for the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order.

¶16We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter.

¶17Interim order dated 06.03.2019 passed in W.P. (C) 2129/2019 and other connected matters shall continue till the matters are taken-up by the Tribunal.

¶18We reiterate that no special equity will flow in favour of the petitioners in view of the order passed either at the first stage before the Tribunal or by this court.

¶19Parties to appear before the Tribunal on 05.11.2019.

¶20With these observations, the writ petitions stand disposed of.

C.M. No.10251/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2184/2019 C.M. No.10271/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2185/2019

C.M. Nos.9972/2019, 10454/2019 & 45006/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2129/2019 C.M. No.10587/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2257/2019 C.M. No.10590/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2258/2019 C.M. No.10593/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2259/2019 C.M. No.10596/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2260/2019 C.M. No.10599/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2261/2019 C.M. No.10602/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2262/2019 C.M. No.10606/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2263/2019 C.M. No.10609/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2264/2019 C.M. No.10612/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2265/2019 C.M. No.10615/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2266/2019 C.M. No.10618/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2267/2019 C.M. No.10621/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2268/2019 C.M. No.10624/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2269/2019 C.M. No.10628/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2270/2019 C.M. No.10631/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2271/2019 C.M. No.10634/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2272/2019 C.M. No.10637/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2273/2019 C.M. No.10640/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2274/2019 C.M. No.10643/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2275/2019 C.M. No.10645/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2276/2019 C.M. No.10648/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2277/2019 C.M. No.10651/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2278/2019 C.M. No.10654/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2279/2019 C.M. No.10675/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2291/2019 C.M. No.10678/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2292/2019 C.M. No.10727/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2302/2019 C.M. No.11212/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2405/2019 C.M. No.11298/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2422/2019 C.M. No.11315/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2431/2019 C.M. No.11418/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2449/2019 C.M. No.11433/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2454/2019 C.M. No.10131/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2156/2019 C.M. No.10249/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2183/2019

C.M. No.10526/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2243/2019 C.M. No.10698/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2297/2019 C.M. No.10701/2019 in W.P.(C) No.2298/2019

¶21In view of the order passed in the writ petitions, all these applications stand disposed of.

G.S. SISTANI, J

ANUP JAIRAM BHAMBHANI, J OCTOBER 14, 2019/ck

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Judgment : 14th October, 2019 + KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2185/2019 SHRI SHIV OM & ORS. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2129/2019 RAKESH KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2257/2019 DEEPAK & ORS ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2258/2019 SH. MAHENDRA KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2259/2019 VIJAY SINGH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2260/2019 SANJEEV KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2261/2019 SH. SAMANDER SINGH AND ORS. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2262/2019 SH. RAJESH MAROTI KODWATE ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2263/2019 PARVEEN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2264/2019 RAJ SINGH AND ORS ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2265/2019 NARENDER KUMAR & ORS ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2266/2019 SH. OMKAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2267/2019 SH. SUNIL DUTT ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2268/2019 SH. RAKESH KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2269/2019 SH. SATISH KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2270/2019 IMRAT LAL AHIRWAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2271/2019 MS. NIDHI NAGPAL ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2272/2019 ASHOK KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2273/2019 SH. KRISHAN CHAND AND ORS. ..... Petitioners versus SECRETARY MINISTRY OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2274/2019 SH. VINOD KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2275/2019 SONJE PRAVEEN ASHOK ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2276/2019 SH. BRIJ NANDAN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2277/2019 SH. SURENDER SINGH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2278/2019 SH. DINESH KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2279/2019 SH. TARUN BHARTI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2291/2019 SHRI SANDEEP KUMAR AND ORS. ..... Petitioners versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2292/2019 DEEPAK ARORA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2302/2019 HIMANSHU SHARMA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2405/2019 VISHNU KUMAR ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2422/2019 POORNIMA JAYACHANDRAN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2431/2019 SMT. SONIA RANI ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2449/2019 SHRI LAKSHMAN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2454/2019 SATPAL SINGH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2156/2019 PAWAN ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2183/2019 SATISH CHAND ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2243/2019 MANOJ SATIJA ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents + W.P.(C) 2297/2019 SHRI RAKESH ..... Petitioner versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondent + W.P.(C) 2298/2019 SHRI NARENDER KUMAR-II