Jagjivan Ram @ Jage Ram vs Airport Authority Of India
2019 Latest Caselaw 2105 Del

$~
*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                                        Reserved on:        03.04.2019
                                        Pronounced on:      22.04.2019
+      W.P.(C) 5356/2012
       JAGJIVAN RAM @ JAGE RAM                 ..... Petitioner
                    Through  Mr. Asish Nischal with Mr. Arun
                             Nischal, Advs.

                          versus

       AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA               ..... Respondent
                    Through   Mr. Dig Vijay Rai with Mr. Kustubh
                              Singh Advs. for R1.
       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KUMAR KAIT

                               JUDGMENT

1. Vide the present petition, the petitioner seeks direction thereby setting

aside order dated 24.07.2012 whereby the request of the petitioner for

permitting to join duties has been rejected. Further seeks direction thereby

directing the respondent to review its order dated 18.04.2001 whereby the

services of the petitioner was terminated in the light of acquittal of the

petitioner by the criminal court in case of FIR bearing No.5/2001, under

sections 420/471 of the IPC.

2. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.02.1998, the respondent-

authority issued a letter regularizing the services of the petitioner w.e.f.

06.12.1996 as Safaiwala in the pay scale of ₹ 2400-50-3150-3330 with basic

pay of ₹ 2400 per month. On 05.03.2001, FIR bearing number 5/2001 was

registered as mentioned above. On 19.03.2001, the respondent-authority

issued a show cause notice to the petitioner, on the ground that the petitioner

deliberately suppressed the information from the respondent-authority that

his real name is „Jagjivan Ram' and not „Jage Ram' and through the said

show cause notice, the reply was directed to be filed within 15 days from the

date of receipt of the notice. On 11.04.2001, the petitioner submitted his

request to the respondent-authority to give some more time to reply to the

show cause notice, however, the respondent-authority, without granting the

petitioner more time to reply, issued order dated 18.04.2001 terminating the

services of the petitioner.

3. Being aggrieved, in the month of May, 2001, the petitioner preferred

an appeal to the appellate authority against the termination order dated

18.04.2001. There was no reply to the said appeal. On 13.04.2012, the

learned Metropolitan Magistrate, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi acquitted the

petitioner of the offences under sections 420 and 471 of the IPC and holding

that the petitioner i.e. Jagjivan Ram and Jage Ram are the same person. On

30.05.2012, the petitioner pursuant to the judgment mentioned above,

represented to the respondent-authority for his reinstatement in service. On

24.07.2012, the respondent-authority rejected the representation of the

petitioner on the ground that the District Court, Dwarka, New Delhi, vide its

judgment dated 13.04.2012 has not issued any directions to respondent-

authority.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the

respondent-authority has erred in not appreciating the fact that FIR was

registered against the petitioner, on the same set of facts and charges on

which the respondent- authority terminated the petitioner from service. If the

departmental inquiry and criminal trial are based upon the same set of facts

and charges and in the department inquiry, a penalty is imposed and

thereafter, the Criminal Court acquits that person on the same set of facts

and charges, the penalty, in the departmental inquiry, needs to be reviewed.

Accordingly, the petitioner had developed a reasonable expectation since he

has been acquitted by the Criminal Court in the concerned case and on the

basis of which, he was terminated by the respondent-authority, the

departmental penalty needs to be reviewed.

5. He further submitted that no Criminal Court will direct the department

to reinstate the person back in service. In fact, the Criminal Court

adjudicates upon the conviction or acquittal of a person.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the services of

the petitioner has been terminated while exercising the powers conferred

upon the respondent under Regulation 23 of IAAI Regulation, 1980. As per

the said regulation, 30 days notice period is required or pay in lieu of notice.

However, vide show cause notice dated 19.03.2001, only 15 days time was

given to file reply which is contrary to the Regulation 23 of IAAI

Regulation, 1980. Moreover, the petitioner made request on 11.04.2001 to

give some more time to file reply but the same was rejected and issued

termination order dated 18.04.2001. Thus, the order of termination is

contrary to the Regulations mentioned above. Moreover, the appeal of the

petitioner is pending, however, not decided by the appellate authority.

7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent submits that the petitioner i.e. Jage Ram, vide letter dated

26.02.1998 was regularized as Sweeper w.e.f. 06.12.1996. In the month of

January 2001, a complaint was received by the Vigilance Directorate against

Jage Ram that said Jage Ram had obtained employment with the respondent

on the basis of forged certificate in the name of Jage Ram whereas his real

name is Jagjivan Ram, son of Sh. Chunni Lal. Accordingly, on the

recommendations of the Vigilance Department, the respondent initiated

investigations and issued a show cause notice dated 19.03.2001. After

investigations, it was established that Jage Ram had deliberately suppressed

and furnished incorrect information to get his service regularized. FIR was

got lodged by the respondent against the petitioner on 05.03.2001 and

summons were issued to the petitioner under section 91 of the CPC. After

considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondent

terminated the services of Jage Ram on 18.04.2001.

8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that

the appointment was made to Jage Ram vide letter dated 26.02.1998 wherein

it is clearly mentioned that the regularization is based on the information

furnished by way of an affidavit or other documents. However, in the event

of any information being found to be incorrect or deliberately suppressed at

any point of time, his regularization will be treated as void and the service

will be terminated. Moreover, during the process of regularization of

service, Jage Ram submitted an affidavit dated 12.02.1997, mentioning his

name as Jage Ram son of Chunni Lal. In this affidavit, the petitioner has not

declared that he is also known as Jagjivan Ram. It is further submitted that

only after the case of impersonation came to the notice and after the show

cause notice was issued, Jage Ram submitted an affidavit dated 09.04.2001

declaring that "my name in the official record is Jagjivan Ram, son of Sh.

Chunni Lal and my nick name is Jage Ram, son of Sh. Chunni Lal and that

Jagjivan Ram, son of Sh. Chunni Lal and Jage Ram, son of Sh. Chunni Lal,

is one and same person." However, during the course of investigation, the

genuineness of School Leaving Certificate submitted by Jage Ram was

verified from Head Master, Government High School, Patauda, Jhajjar,

Haryana. It was confirmed by the Principal of the said school vide letter

dated 08.08.2000 that the School Leaving Certificate was never issued from

the school. Thus, it is apparent that the petitioner had deliberately

concealed/suppressed the facts and submitted incorrect information and

forged documents to get his job regularized with the respondent.

9. It is further submitted that the petitioner was issued a show cause

notice vide memorandum dated 19.03.2001 by the vigilance department, the

Corporation Headquarter, directing him to submit his reply within 15 days

from the date of receipt of the said show cause notice, as to why his services

should not be terminated. Further directed that his reply should reach within

the stipulated period, failing which it will be presumed that the petitioner has

nothing to say in his defence and decision will be taken on the merit of the

case. However, the petitioner did not submit his reply within the stipulated

time. Consequently, the Disciplinary Authority issued an order dated

18.04.2001 after one month of the issuing of the show cause notice,

terminating the services of the petitioner with effect from the date of issuing

of the order.

10. Counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner was granted

15 days time which was sufficient to submit his reply. Further submits that

since there is no provision in the order dated 18.04.2001 to appeal against

the termination of the services of the petitioner, therefore, no order is passed

in his appeal.

11. He further submitted that the learned MM did not exonerate the

petitioner of the charges leveled against him as it has been observed in the

judgment dated 13.04.2012 that "prosecution did not bring original School

Leaving Certificate and affidavit of Jage Ram @ Jagjivan Ram in Court nor

seek permission to lead secondary evidence regarding in addition to this it is

also not proved that Jagjivan Ram used forged documents to get the job

even if accused Jagjivan Ram @ Jage Ram was found culprit in

Departmental Inquiry then this Court is not bound to accept the

Departmental Inquiry report moreover prosecution witness has deposed that

Jagjivan Ram and Jage Ram are same person and I do not find any merit in

the present case in absence of documents in question, therefore the accused

is acquitted of the offence under Section 420/471 IPC".

12. He further submitted that in paras 32 and 36 of the judgment, learned

MM has recorded as under:

"32. Ex PW4/B was exhibited by PW4 SI Parveen Kumar stating that the during course of investigation he had obtained certificate form Sh. Lal Singh Principal Govt. Secondary School, Jhajjar, which is Ex PW4/B in which principal stated that school leaving certificate file no. 29, serial no. 8 dated 27.09.1955 was issued to one Mr. Lalit Kumar and not to Mr. Jage Ram but the Principal died before he could be called in court to prove Ex PW4/B nor any official form school was called to prove the same. IO stated the Principal executed this document in front of him so he can exhibit it. It was objected by Ld. Defence counsel. As per the Judgment of Hon'ble Justice R.C.Lohati titled as Sudir Engineering Company vs Nitco Roadways Ltd. on 23 March, 1995, Equivalent citations: 1995 IIAD Delhi 189, 1995 (34) DRJ 86, 1995 RLR286 "More exhibition of document does not mean it has been proved." a document may be proved by its executant or by attesting witness but in the absence of both of these persons two section 47 and section 67 are relevant.

36. After going through the whole evidence on record and after dealing with contentions of ld. Defence counsel I am of the opinion that prosecution did not bring original school leaving certificate and affidavit of Jage Ram @ Jagjivan Ram in court nor seek permission to lead secondary evidence regarding in addition to this it is also not proved that Jagjivan Ram used forged document to get that job even if accused Jagjivan Ram @ Jage Ram was found culprit in Departmental Enquiry then this court is not bound to accept that departmental inquiry

report moreover, prosecution witness has deposed that Jagjivan Ram and Jage Ram are same person and I do not find any merit in the case of prosecution in absence of documents in question, therefore the accused is acquitted of the offence under section 420/471 IPC."

13. It is further argued that the termination order dated 18.04.2001 has

been challenged in the year 2012 belatedly. Therefore, the present petition

is filed after inordinate delay and latches.

14. On the issue of delay, counsel for the respondent has relied upon the

case decided by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in State of Orissa & Anr. vs.

Mamata Mohanty: (2011) 3 SCC 436 whereby the Hon‟ble Supreme Court

has observed that the Limitation Act, 1963 does not apply in writ

jurisdiction, however, the doctrine of limitation being based on public

policy, the principles enshrined therein are applicable and writ petitions are

dismissed at initial stage on the ground of delay and latches.

15. He further submitted that the petitioner is seeking review of the

termination order based upon the acquittal in a criminal court. He submits

that in case of T.N.C.S. Corporation Limited & Ors. vs. K. Meerabai:

(2006) 2 SCC 255 whereby held that interference is not permissible unless

the orders passed by quasi-judicial authorities are clearly unreasonable or

perverse or manifestly illegal or grossly unjust. It is observed that if the

criminal proceedings ended in acquittal on merits and that became final,

then a lenient view must be taken since the charges in both the cases are

identically the same. Thus, the present petition deserves to be dismissed.

16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material

available on record.

17. The petitioner was regularised w.e.f. 06.12.1996 as Safaiwala in basic

pay scale of ₹ 2400-50-3150-3000 with the basic pay of ₹ 2400 per month.

On 05.03.2001, FIR bearing no.5/01 was registered and on 19.03.2001, the

respondent authority issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on the

ground that the petitioner deliberately suppressed the information from the

respondent authority with his real name as Jagjivan Ram and not Jage Ram.

The petitioner was directed to file reply within 15 days from the date of

receipt of the notice. Though on 11.04.2001, the petitioner had requested to

give some more time to reply to the show cause notice, however, the

petitioner failed to file reply and finally vide order dated 18.04.2001, the

respondent terminated the services of the petitioner. The said order was

passed after a month of the show cause notice.

18. On receipt of the complaint by Vigilance Directorate, the respondent

initiated investigation whereby it was established that the petitioner had

deliberately suppressed and furnished incorrect information to get his

services regularised. During investigation, a reference was made to

Headmaster, Govt. High School, Patauda to confirm the genuineness of the

School Leaving Certificate submitted by the petitioner. It has been

confirmed by the school authorities that the certificate in question had never

been issued in the name of the petitioner.

19. It is not in dispute that the petitioner got service in the name of Jage

Ram son of Shri Chunni Lal. However, during investigation, it is admitted

that his real name was Jagjivan Ram son of Shri Chunni Lal and was

enrolled under the same name and parentage with the aforesaid school as

well as in the village electoral roll. It was also admitted that the School

Leaving Certificate submitted by the petitioner at the time of his

regularization was a forged document giving false particulars of date of birth

and name with an intention to get his service regularized as Sweeper in the

name of Jage Ram and to get the benefit of extended service period after the

actual date of retirement.

20. It is pertinent to mention that in the appointment letter dated

26.02.1998, it was clearly mentioned that the regularization is based on the

information furnished by way of an affidavit or other documents. However,

in the event of any information being found to be incorrect or deliberately

suppressed, at any point of time, his regularization will be treated as void

and services will be terminated. However, during the process of

regularisation of service, the petitioner submitted an affidavit dated

12.02.1997 mentioning his name as Jage Ram son of Shri Chunni Lal. In the

said affidavit, the petitioner did not declare that he is also known as Jagjivan

Ram. But thereafter the petitioner submitted an affidavit on 09.04.2001

declaring that his name in the official record is Jagjivan Ram and his nick

name is Jage Ram and that Jagjivan Ram and Jage Ram is one and the same

person.

21. If the name of petitioner in official record was Jagjivan Ram then

why he got regularized in the respondent department in the name of Jage

Ram which shows that there was some suppression on the part of the

petitioner.

22. It is not in dispute that on registration of FIR and issuing summons

from the criminal court, the petitioner was removed from service.

Thereafter, the trial court vide judgment dated 13.04.2012 acquitted the

petitioner from the criminal charges.

23. But the fact remains that in the judgment, the trial court has noted in

para 32 that Ex.PW4/B was exhibited by PW4 SI Parveen Kumar stating

that during the course of investigation, he had obtained certificate from Shri

Lal Singh, Principal, Govt. Secondary School, Jhajjar in which the Principal

stated that School Leaving Certificate file no.29, Serial no.8 dated

27.09.1955 was issued to one Lalit Kumar and not to Jage Ram. However,

the said document could not be proved before the trial court due to demise

of the Principal and no other officials from the school was called to prove

the same.

24. In addition to above, till date the petitioner has failed to establish that

his School Leaving Certificate was genuine and in the name of Jage Ram

under which he is working with the respondent.

25. In para 36 of the judgment, learned trial court mentioned that

prosecution did not bring original School Leaving Certificate and affidavit

of the petitioner in court nor seek permission to lead secondary evidence.

Accordingly, the trial court acquitted the petitioner of the offences under

sections 420/471 IPC.

26. It is settled law that in a criminal case, case against the accused has to

be proved beyond reasonable doubt whereas in the departmental

proceedings, preponderance of probabilities is required. In the present case,

the petitioner admitted that his real name is Jagjivan Ram and nick name is

Jage Ram whereas he produced School Leaving Certificate of Jage Ram and

working as Jage Ram which creates doubt upon the petitioner.

27. In case of Meerabai (Supra), the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that

interference is not permissible unless the orders passed by quasi-judicial

authorities are clearly unreasonable or perverse or manifestly illegal or

grossly unjust. It is further observed that if the criminal proceedings ended

in acquittal on merit and that became final, then a lenient view must be taken

since the charges in both the cases are identically the same.

28. In the case in hand, the acquittal of the petitioner is not on merit but

on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove the Ex.PW4/B due to the

demise of the Principal of the school or no official come from the school to

prove the said document.

29. In view of above discussion and settled position of law, I am of the

view that there is no merit in the present petition and the same is,

accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs.

(SURESH KUMAR KAIT) JUDGE APRIL 22, 2019/ab