Naveen Kumar v. Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.

JUSTICE LS.Mii:,HTA ORDER % KAJLASH GAMBHTP^. 1 (OR A IT) CM_No, 7833/2015 in WiYC) Nn.4l7iV?o j[5] CM_No,:7^2015 WFfC) NoA12smris CMJVo. 7853/2015 in WPfC) No.4.336/7"iH^ CM No. 7854/2015 in WP(0 No.4337/2015 QM_WoiJZ^0/2.015 in VmC) No.414R/?iij^ W.p. (C)No. 4320/2015, 4321/2015,4336/2015,4337/2015, 4348/2015 p^ge2ofV r r Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions. Applications stand disposed of. WP(Q No.4320/2015 WP(C) No„432j/2015 WP(C) No.4336/20jjS WF(C) N0.4337/2OIS WP(C) No.4348/20-15

1. By a common order dated 07.07.2014, the learned Central Administi-ative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereimfter referred to as the •learned Tribunal) has dismissed abatch ofOriginal Applications (in..hort VA') prefen-ed by the applicants who.were selected to be apponrted to the post of Fire Operators in Delhi Fire Sei-vice (in short •DPS') but their services were terminated imder Sub- rule (1) ofRule 5of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Service) Rules. 1965 (in short 'CCS Rules') after their driving licences were found to be forged on verification from the Licensing Authority.

2. By this oi-dei-, we propose to dispose of the present batch of Writ Petrlions preferi-ed by the petitioners who were the applicants before the learned Tribunal and are aggrieved by the common order dated 07.07.2014 -f f r by some other petitioners before this Court and by order dated 21.04.2015 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No. 6358/2014 with other connected Writ Petitions and order dated 30.04.2015 in W.P.(C) 3633/2015 with other connected WiMt Petitions. The Writ Petitions were disjnissed as withdrawn with the liberty to challenge the order dated 15.11.2010 passed by the Regional Transport Authority, Agra.

3. Mr. Amn Bhardwaj, the Icarjued counsel for the petitioners, on instructions,.does not wish to follow the trodden path ofseeking withdrawal of the present Writ Petitions with the same liberty as was granted to the othci petitioners. The learned counsel emphatically submits that the petitioners have a veiy good case on itsmerits.

4. Addressijig arguments, the learned coutisel submits that the petitioners were not in possession offake licenses as in fact the official who had issued the receipt had issued areceipt of Rs.600/- collectively for ten peisons instead o( taking an individual license fee at the rate of Rs.60/- Another contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the license could be termed as "feke". only when the authority says that they had not issued the license. The learned counsel further contends that the two grounds which have been given by the licensing authority to term the said W.P, (C) No. 4320/2015, 4321/2015, 4336/2015, 4337/2015, 4348/201! Page 4 of? ' r P- r licenses as fake are that the address ofthe petitioners was incomplete and that individual receipts were not given, which at best could have been termed as a violation of the procedure envisaged in 9(2) of the Motor Vehicle Act, 1988 and in any case the same could not have been termed as "fake". The learned counsel further submits that the Transport Authority was nota paily before die Ld. Tribunal and therefore also no credence could be given to the stand taken bythe respondents.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners.

6. These petitionei's were seeking appointment to the post of Fire OjDerators in the DFS. To seek appointment to the said post, it was pre requisite for these petitioners to have a HMV driving licence. As per these petitioners, they had obtained their driving licences from the Regional Transport Officer, Agra and when verification of these licenses was caiTied out by the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Agra, vide order letter dated 15.11.2010 they reported that all the 81 driving licences which were issued in favour of all these candidates, seeking appointment to the post of Fire Operator were fake and forged. Prior to this, there were some contradictory reports given by the Office of Transport Authority, Agra but f • rianspoit Oliicer, Agra found all these driving licences to be forged. The Tj-anspoj tAuthority could also unearth the main man behind this fraud who being one oftheir employee, namely SitaRam Verma. AFIR was registered against hmi and he was aixested and also placed under suspension. Before ternimatmg the tejiiporary services of all these petitioners, a Show Cause Notice was served upon them and it is an admitted case between the parties that these petitioners never raised any challenge to the said decision taken by the Transpojt Authority of terming their licences as forged. It was already stated above that it was pre-requisite for these petitioners to be in possession of MMV driving licences and there could be no compromise on this condition,, as (hese petitioners after thei)- appointment were to Operate the Fire Brigade vehicles and any compromise in this regard could prove disastrous. It was imperative for these petitioners to possess proper driving licenses. Theirs is avery sensitive job and it is pertinent that only the ablest ofdj-ivers.make their way into the services of the DFS and get appointed as Fire Operators. It was for the petitioners to have taken steps to challenge the decision of the Transport Authority, Agra before the Competent Court of law and having taken no steps in this regard even after they were made dwai.e oi the said decision, by itself speaks volumes of the conduct of these W.P. (C) No. 4320/2015,4321/2015, 4336/2015,4337/2015, 4348/2015 pcUtioners. We cannot be oblivious (d' (he iact (hat the Agra Tj'ansport Authority, /\gra has already identilicd tb.e main man behind this whole murky allair, i.e. one 3ita Ram Vei'jna against whom a criminal case was legistered and he was ajTcsted and placed under suspension. /. Jo a t|ue]-y raised by the Coujt to the learned counsel for the respondents as to whether ciiminal cases have also been registered against ail the holders ol: the said forged licences, the learned counsel appiises the Court that criminal cases have been registered against all these drivers.

8. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj disputes tliis lact. However, ifthis is not correct, and no criminal cases have been registered against these drivers, then we direct the Police Station to investigate the role of the holders of these liccjises and alter investigation proceed in accordance with lav/.

9. There i:'^ no merit in the prcscm Writ Petitions and the same are hereby dismissed. X -i / ' / !/ H !AV01,, 21) i,5/aj/v SCAJ.LASli CAMBHIR, J" / { W.IV (C) No. 4320/20 15. 4321/2015, 4336/2015, 4337 ZOI j. 4348/2015 Page 7 of[7]