Hanuman Sarin vs Uoi & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3510 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                 Date of Decision: 25th July, 2011


+                        W.P.(C) 3237/1997


        HANUMAN SARIN                          ..... Petitioner
                Through:       Mr.N.M.Popli, Advocate with
                               Mr.Yatendra Sharma, Advocate


                               versus


        UOI & ORS.                            ..... Respondents
                  Through:     Mr.Ashok Singh, Advocate


        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R.MIDHA

     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
        to see the judgment?

     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. Born in village Beur, District Banda, Uttar Pradesh, petitioner claims to have migrated to Delhi in search of a job and having got his name registered with the employment exchange on 9.9.1987 so that his name could be sponsored by the exchange as and when a Government job was notified for appointment.

2. Petitioner claims that initially he resided with his maternal uncle Sh.Dilip Kumar at premises No.I-27, Vijay Vihar, Rithala, Delhi and later on shifted to H-188, Vijay Vihar, Rithala, Delhi-34.

3. Obtaining employment as a Constable with CRPF, petitioner claims to have filled up the verification rolls and as per which he furnished his address at Delhi where he was residing with his uncle as also his permanent address in village Beur, PO Bhaurri, District Banda. Joining as a Constable with CRPF on 21.3.1988 petitioner claims that his battalion was in Kashmir, when he received the order dated 2.2.1991 terminating his services, without assigning any cause.

4. The order in question reads as under:-

"In pursuance of the proviso to Sub-rule 91) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965, I, M.M.SHARMA, Commandant hereby terminate forthwith the service of No.881191332 CT Hanuman Saran of F-37 Bn. and direct that he shall be entitled to claim a sum equivalent to the amount of the pay plus allowances for the period of notice of the same rates to which he was drawing them immediately before the termination of his service, or, as the case may be, for the period by which such notice falls short of one month."

5. Petitioner claims to have learnt that the reason why his service was terminated was that his antecedents could not be verified inasmuch as when the officer who went to investigate found nobody at the given address. He submitted an appeal to the Director General CRPF which was dismissed/rejected vide order dated Nil.9.1993, which reads as under:-

"No.881191332 Ex-Constable Hanuman Saran was

recruited as a Constable in Group Centre, CRPF, New Delhi w.e.f. 21-04-1988. His services were subsequently terminated under the provisions of sub- rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civlil Service (Temporary Service) Rules, 1965 vide Commandant 37 Bn. vide C/O No.V.V.-1/91-37-EC-1 dated 02-02-1991. Individual has made a representation against the said order. His representation has been examined in detail and it is noticed that the termination of service in respect of Ex-Constable No.881191332 Hanuman Saran ordered by the Commandant 37 Bn. vide Office Order No.D.V.-1/91/37-EC-1 dated 02-02-1991 is in order as per rules on the subject. As there is no merit in the re-resentation of Ex-Constable No.881191332 Hanuman Saran the same is rejected."

6. Petitioner thereupon preferred a writ petition before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, which writ petition, being W.P.(C) No.22502/1994 was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.3.1997 inasmuch as the respondents raised the bar of territorial jurisdiction.

7. Thereupon instant writ petition was filed.

8. In the counter affidavit filed, in the brief facts of the case it is pleaded as under:-

"BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE

The petitioner was recruited as a Constable in GC, CRPF, New Delhi with effect from 21.4.88 and was received a transfer from GC, CRPF, New Delhi on 24.5.1989 he was subsequently transferred to -32 Bn. on 24.7.89. As per verification roll furnished by him on 9/9/90 he mentioned his residential address as under:-

1. From July 68 to July 1986

Vill. Beena P.O. Bhanwari P.S.Karari Distt.Banda (U.P.)

2. From 86 to Feb. 1988

H.108, Vijay Vihar, Rithala, Manglapuri, Delhi-34.

As per the permanent residential address of Delhi given by him at the time of enlistment his verification roll was sent to Deputy Commissioner of Police Special Branch Delhi Police by the GCO New Delhi but the same could not be verified due to incomplete residential address. Subsequently Comdt-37 Bn. CRPF sent the correct residential address to GCO New Delhi but due to wrong address his character and antecedents could not be got verified for which his services were subsequently terminated under the provisions of sub-Rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Central Civil Services (Temporary) Service Rules 1965 vide Comdt.37 Bn. vide O/O No.D.V.-1/91-37-E-I dated 2.2.91 as no person can be allowed to be retained in the force without verification of character and antecedent.

The petitioner had made a representation against termination of his service and had also filed a writ petition against the order of 2.2.91 passed by Comdt.- 37 Bn. before the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad.

The aforesaid writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 3.3.97 and his representation had been also rejected by the IG P N/S CRPF, New Delhi vide his order dated 18/9/93 as there was no merit in his case."

9. This is the fulcrum of the defence taken i.e. that due to incomplete residential address provided by the petitioner, character verification pertaining to his antecedents could not be got done and since the rules require that before confirmation the antecedents of the petitioner had to be

verified; verification being hampered on account of the fault of the petitioner, the respondent was justified in taking the action.

10. We are quite surprised at the action taken by the respondent for the reason if the respondent could not obtain a character verification report qua the antecedents of the petitioner inasmuch as the local police informed them that the address provided was inadequate or deficient, least which was expected was that the department should have written to the petitioner seeking better particulars about the address provided by the petitioner where he was staying as claimed by him with his uncle.

11. Instant case highlights the pitfalls of unauthorized colonization in Delhi.

12. Rithala is a village in Delhi and the Government has not permitted any colonization on the agricultural lands of said village. Land sharks had illegally carved out residential plots on agricultural lands which have been purchased by innocent persons. They have made their houses on said illegal carved out plots of land. There is nothing official about these colonies and the result is people giving private numbers to their houses. But this is the reality for half the population of Delhi which lives in these unauthorized slums.

13. If the Government cannot provide housing to all and those without a shelter manage a shelter over their heads, it is the duty of the Government to at-least ensure that when, in furtherance of the requirement of a service rules, character/antecedent verification has to be carried out its officers are able to locate the slum and the houses therein.

14. If the officers fail, it would be their obligation to contact the person concerned and seek his help in locating the abode of the person. This would be the duty of care which law enjoins upon these officers.

15. Finding irregularity in the procedures adopted by the respondent we dispose of the writ petition quashing the order dated 2.2.1991 as also the order dated Nil.9.1993 rejecting the appeal filed by the petitioner.

16. We direct the petitioner to be reinstated in service and on the issue of character verification we hold that it would be too late in the day for the respondents to do the needful. It is not the case of the respondents that they have found anything wanting in the character of the petitioner. We are not permitting character verification for the reason after petitioner lost his job he was compelled to settle in his native village and today, in the year 2011, it would be virtually impossible to locate people in the locality who could vouch for the character of the petitioner. Statutory records maintained by the police in terms of FIRs registered prior to 1991 and the accused named therein would also not be readily available for the reason since 1991 police station jurisdictions have changed at least 10 times in the city of Delhi; as the city has expanded.

17. We leave it open to the competent authority of the respondent to pass an appropriate order contemplated by FR- 54 with respect to the manner in which the period post petitioner being terminated from service till reinstatement has to be reckoned.

18. No costs.

19. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

J.R.MIDHA, J.

JULY 25, 2011 mm