RAJESH KUMAR Vs. CAJ

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BOTH these writ petitions are arising out from the common judgment dated 27.5.2014 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench Johdpur (hereinafter referred to as the CAT for short) whereby the CAT dismissed the review applications filed by both the petitioners to review the judgment passed in OA Nos. 578/2011 and 579/2011.

(2.) AS per the brief facts of the case, the petitioners Madan Lal Pooniya and Rajesh Kumar preferred OA Nos. 578/2011 and 579/2011 respectively on the ground that they were selected for the post of Social Security Assistant in the Punjab Region of EPF Organization which is the Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Regional Office, Chandigarh and they have executed the offer of appointment. The petitioners fill up their profile attestation roll and submitted the same to the respondents and those attestation forms were forwarded to the District Magistrate, Sri Ganganagar (Raj.) for verification of their character and antecedents, but after verification of the facts, the District Magistrate, Sriganganagar reported that both the petitioners were involved in some criminal case. According to the report, against the petitioner Madan Lal Pooniya FIR bearing No. 534 dated 25.10.2003 was lodged for the offences under Sections 307, 324, 325, 334, 323, 147, 148 and 149 IPC at Police Station Raisinghnagar, District Sriganganagar and in that case the learned trial court vide order dated 4.9.2004, acquitted him from the charges under Sections 147, 148, 307 and 326/149 IPC and by its decision acquitted him from the charges under Sections 323, 324 and 325 IPC on the basis of compromise. Another FIR No. 96 dated 7.3.2004 under Section 341, 323, 504 and 34 IPC was also registered against him in the same police station and the trial court vide its order dated 26.8.2004 acquitted him from the above charges on the basis of compromise, therefore, denial of appointment on the ground of registration of criminal case is illegal.

(3.) IN the case of Rajesh Kumar, an FIR No. 534 dated 25.10.2003 for criminal case was registered under Section 307, 326, 325, 234, 323, 147, 148, 149 IPC in which later on Rajesh Kumar was acquitted by the learned trial court. The petitioners did not disclose the aforesaid facts while filing the attestation forms even though there were specific column therein asking them whether they are involved in criminal case or not, but it was only on verification of their character and their antecedents, the said information came to the knowledge of the respondents. According to this, they did not disclose those information as they have already been acquitted by the learned trial court of all those criminal cases and the criminal charges were due to domestic dispute among the family members/relatives in which they were falsely implicated, but subsequently, entered into compromise and settled the matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners argued that in the criminal cases both the petitioners were acquitted from the charges leveled against them therefore obviously in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Police and Ors. Vs. Sandeep Kumar reported in 2011 (DNL) SC 710 the respondents are under obligation to appoint the petitioners, but unfortunately the respondents cancelled the appointment order on the ground that petitioners have failed to disclose true information in the application form.