Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Decision delivered on: 30.08.2024
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, CGSC
Through: Mr. Brijender Chahar, Senior Advocate
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GIRISH KATHPALIA
JUDGMENT
1. In view of appearance of respondent in the present petition, present Caveat CAV 424/2024 stands discharged. CM APPL. 50050/2024 (exemption)
2. Exemption allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Applications stands disposed of. W.P.(C) 12028/2024 & CM APPL. 50051/2024
4. By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have sought the following relief: “a) Issue appropriate writ or direction setting aside the impugned order dated 21.05.2024 passed by the Hon'ble Central Administrative Tribunal Principal Bench, New Delhi in O.A No.2223/2022 & dismiss the said O.A. NO. 2223/2022.”
5. On issuing notice, learned counsel for the respondent accepts the same and with the consent of the parties, the present petition is being disposed of today itself.
6. Though the present petition has been filed on various grounds, however, learned counsel for the petitioner has confined his submissions to the following grounds only:
I. Because on the basis of result of CFSL report, it has come to the notice that there is a vast difference in the specimen signature of the candidate with their respective signatures on Application and OMR sheets. The mismatch of signatures on various documents has established impersonation.
7. The petitioners vide their notification dated 09.04.2016 invited applications for the post of Postman/Mail Guard in MP Postal Circle in Grade Pay of Rs.2000/-. The respondent participated in the said selection process. The result of the said notification was declared on 21.09.2016 on the website of the petitioners. However, the declared result was kept on hold on account of certain alleged irregularity noticed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the matter was investigated by STF Bhopal. Certain persons approached the learned Central Administrative Tribunal agitating their grievances and accordingly, two OAs were disposed of vide common order dated 04.10.2018 and the petitioners therein were directed to get the investigation being conducted by the STF completed within a period of one year from 28.12.2017. The said order of the Tribunal was challenged before the High Court of Madhya Pradesh and the same was disposed of by directing the petitioners to complete the process of appointment within a period of three months. Accordingly, the petitioners proceeded with the appointment of the selected candidates.
8. The respondent was appointed to the post of Postman and allotted Hoshangabad postal Division and offer of appointment dated 22.04.2019 was issued to him. Vide the said offer of appointment, the respondent was specifically informed that his appointment will be purely on temporary basis and the same shall be liable to the terminated at any time without assigning any reason. It was also provided in the offer of appointment of that signature of the respondent obtained in circle office of the petitioners at Bhopal shall be sent to Central Forensic Science Laboratory (CFSL) for comparing/verifying with the signatures on application form submitted by the respondent at the time of application/OMR sheet and if a negative report is received from CFSL in respect of his signature, the provisional appointment would be terminated without any notice.
9. Accordingly, the respondent in the prescribed format had given an undertaking in this regard and was allowed to join the post under reference. The original document of the respondent i.e., signature on admit card, OMR sheet and his sample signatures given before the Committee at multiple places were sent by the petitioners to CFSL for their expert opinion on the genuineness of the signatures of the respondent.
10. In view of the report of the CFSL, the petitioners issued the termination order dated 05.02.2021 and the respondent stood terminated vide the said order and same was challenged by the respondent before the learned Tribunal.
11. The case of the respondent before the learned Tribunal was that identical issue came for adjudication before the Tribunal in various OAs including OA No. 2241/2022, OA No. 2226/2022 and OA NO. 2222/2022 and the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Principle Bench, New Delhi, vide a common order and judgment dated 20.03.2023 had partly allowed those three OAs under reference, keeping in view various previous orders of the Tribunal including one dated 30.05.2022 in OA NO. 2440/2021 titled Sh. Sumit Surajmal vs. Union of India & Ors. and also taking into consideration the various objections raised on behalf of the petitioners.
12. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent submitted before the Tribunal that the OA in which the order is impugned before this court is identical to the applicants in OA NO. 2241/2022 and two other OAs referred to hereinabove. He submitted that the petitioners were respondents in the said three OAs decided vide common order dated 20.03.2023 and the said common order has attained finality inasmuch as in compliance of the directions of the Tribunal, the applicants therein have been reinstated in service by the petitioners vide their respective order dated 30.08.2023 and 31.08.2023. The learned counsel also placed on record the copies of such orders dated after supplying a copy thereof to the learned counsel for the petitioners herein.
13. Whereas, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners herein before the learned Tribunal though opposed the claim of the respondent, however, they did not dispute the fact that applicants in the captioned OAs are identical to the applicants in the aforesaid three OAs under reference, decided vide common order dated 20.03.2023 and claim of the respondent therein is also similar to that in the OAs decided vide common order dated 20.03.2023 under reference.
14. Though counsel for the petitioners herein stated before the learned Tribunal that the said petitioners have terminated the services of the applicants keeping in view the undertaking given by them at the time of issuance of offer of appointment letter and also the expert opinion/report received from the CFSL, however, they do not dispute that the same was the situation even in the case of the applicants in the three OAs mentioned above which was partly allowed vide order dated 20.03.2023.
15. The counsel for the petitioner before the learned Tribunal submitted that Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal passed a common order dated 25.07.2023 in OA No. 104/2021 and 143/2021 and order dated 27.07.2023 in OA No. 272/2021 which have been challenged by the petitioners herein before High Court of Madhya Pradesh in MP NO. 272/2024, MP No.221/2024 and MP No.208/2024 respectively. However, he did not dispute that even the order of Jabalpur Bench of the Tribunal has neither been stayed nor the same has been set aside by the High Court.
16. Even on specific query, the petitioners did not dispute that the common order dated 20.03.2023 as mentioned above has attained finality inasmuch as the directions of the learned Tribunal have been complied with by reinstating the applicants in the said OAs.
17. In view of the above, the learned Tribunal partly allowed the OAs filed by the respondent and given liberty to the petitioners herein to proceed against the said respondents, if they so decide in accordance with relevant rules and instructions.
18. It is not in dispute that on receipt of the said FSL report, neither the respondent was apprised about the said FSL report nor any show cause notice was given to him mentioning what was against the respondent in the said FSL report. Without doing that exercise, the petitioners straightway terminated the service of the respondent which is against the settled principles of service jurisprudence.
19. In view the above discussion, we find no error or perversity in the order of the learned Tribunal.
20. Finding no merit in the present petition, the same is dismissed. Consequently, the pending application also stands disposed of.
(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE (GIRISH KATHPALIA)
JUDGE AUGUST 30, 2024