Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4442

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
Ramesh Singh Thakur, Judicial Member, Rashmi Saxena Sahni, Administrative Member
Lakhvir Singh – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
OA No. 060/95/2023|OA No. 060/98/2023|OA No. 060/281/2023|OA No. 060/985/2020|OA No. 060/170/2020|OA No. 060/97/2023|OA No. 060/96/2023|OA No. 060/182/2023

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sh. D.R. Sharma, Ms. Puja Chopra, Sh. J.P.S. Sidhu
For the Respondents: Sh. A.K. Sharma

Honourable acquittal in criminal case on identical charges to termination allegations mandates reinstatement with notional benefits, quashing termination orders issued without departmental inquiry.

Headnote:(A) Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Section 19 - Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 - Rule 14 - Service law - Termination of service - Employees terminated without regular departmental inquiry on allegations of securing appointment via forged nomination letters - Convicted by trial court but acquitted by High Court on merits due to lack of evidence - Similarly placed employees reinstated pursuant to prior Tribunal order upheld upto Supreme Court - Acquittal in criminal case where charges identical to termination allegations entitles employee to reinstatement with notional benefits, as basis of termination ceases to exist - No fresh inquiry permissible due to inordinate delay of over 30 years - Termination orders quashed without holding inquiry under Rule 14 CCS(CCA) Rules. (Paras 17, 29, 34)

(B) Criminal law vis-à-vis service jurisprudence - Acquittal on merit for want of evidence in criminal proceedings based on identical facts as disciplinary/termination proceedings results in exoneration - Departmental authority bound by criminal acquittal; cannot sustain termination - Principles from prior judgments applied to ensure parity and avoid multiplicity of litigation. (Paras 20, 28, 33)

Facts of the case:
Multiple original applications filed by terminated Group C employees of revenue department challenging inaction in reinstatement post High Court acquittal in CBI case alleging forged nominations for securing appointments. Services terminated in 2004 without Rule 14 inquiry despite Tribunal directions; convicted in 2015 but acquitted in 2022 as case covered by earlier acquittal judgment. Prior similar cases resulted in reinstatement vide Tribunal order dated 28.11.2020 upheld upto Supreme Court.

Findings of Court:
Impugned termination orders quashed; respondents directed to reinstate applicants with notional benefits from termination date and actual benefits from joining date, within eight weeks.

Issues: Whether termination without Rule 14 inquiry sustainable post honourable acquittal in identical criminal charges; entitlement to reinstatement with benefits on parity with similarly placed employees; impact of delay on fresh inquiry.

Ratio Decidendi: Honourable acquittal in criminal case with identical allegations to termination grounds exonerates employee, mandating reinstatement; parity with prior judgments upheld upto Supreme Court; unexplained delay of decades vitiates any fresh departmental proceedings; termination without inquiry illegal.

Result: Original applications allowed.

Table of Content
1. listing parties and cases together. (Para 1 , 2)
2. applicants seek reinstatement post-acquittal. (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. procedural history of terminations and remands. (Para 6 , 7 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26)
4. acquittal entitles reinstatement with benefits. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 27 , 28)
5. ssc denial of nominations justified terminations. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
6. identical charges; acquittal binds department. (Para 16 , 17 , 29 , 30)
7. follow precedent and national litigation policy. (Para 31 , 32 , 33)
8. reinstate with notional benefits. (Para 34 , 35 , 36)

ORDER

Per: SH. RAMESH SINGH THAKUR MEMBER (J):

1. All the above eight Original Applications are taken up together for disposal, as a common question of law and facts are involved in all these cases. With the consent of learned counsels for the parties, the facts are being extracted from O.A.No.060/95/2023 (Lakhvir Singh & Ors. Vs. UOI & Ors.) and the said case has been treated as a lead case.

2. The present Original Application has been filed under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 against the inaction of the respondents in not reinstating the applicants into service pursuant to acquittal order dated 23.05.2022 by the Hon‟ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CBI Case RC No. CHG2004A0008/2126 of 31.03.2004. The applicants have also sent a legal notice dated 07.09.2022 and requested the respondents to reinstate them into service, but to no avail.

3. Thus, the applicants have prayed for the following relief(s):-

“That the respondents be directed to reinstate the applicants into service with all consequential benefits like arrears of pay and allowances, with interest @ 12% p.a. and extending the benefit of judgement dated 28.11.2020 (Annexure A-8) upheld by the Punjab and Haryana High Court vide judgement dated 10.03.2022 (Annexure A-9), keeping in view the fact that the applicants have already acquitted from all charges, the very basis/substratum of allegations having been gone.”

4. The brief facts are that the applicants joined against different posts under respondent No. 2. A CBI Case RC No. CHG2004A0008/2126 of 31.03.2004 was filed against the applicants wherein an allegation was levelled that the applicants had secured employment in the respondent department on the basis of forged nomination letter purportedly issued by SSC and that SSC had not nominated them for appointment. The Department issued show cause notice dated 03.09.2004 to the applicants which was replied to by the applicants. But no charge sheet was issued proposing to hold an inquiry under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control & Appeal) Rules, 1965 and the services of the applicants were terminated with immediate effect vide orders (Annexure A-2) without holding a regular inquiry.

5. The Department had also terminated the services of 25 more officials who filed OAs before this Tribunal. All 25 OAs were decided vide common order dated 29.04.2003, inter alia directing the authorities concerned to hold an inquiry with regard to genuineness or otherwise of the nomination letter purported to be issued by the Commission and by granting opportunity to the officials. The Tribunal further recorded in the last para No. 18 of the order as under:-

“18. If ultimately after the inquiry, it is established that the nomination letters produced by the applicants and received by the department directly on the basis of which the applicants were issued the appointment letter were not forged, fictitious or bogus, but were genuine documents, in that event the impugned order of termination of the applicant shall stand set aside and the applicants shall be reinstated in service, ignoring the termination order with all consequential benefits. If the outcome of the inquiry is otherwise i.e. it is found that nomination paper produced by the applicants were forged and fictitious, the impugned termination order shall hold good and the OAs filed by the applicants shal

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2024 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4442

Honourable acquittal in criminal case on identical charges to termination allegations mandates reinstatement with notional benefits, quashing termination orders issued without departmental inquiry.

Cases Referred (3)