Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1847 (RAJ)

Union of India v. Mujaffar Hussain Shaikh

2018-09-06

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

body2018
JUDGMENT 1. The respondent's/original applicant's father was working as Loco Pilot with the petitioner-Railways, and on being declared medically de-categorized and upon being voluntarily retired, the respondent/original applicant was offered appointment on compassionate grounds. 2. The respondent/original applicant was informed vide letter dated 09.10.2015 that his appointment on the post of Hammal Khalasi was sanctioned, in accordance with the recommendations of the Screening Committee and the directions issued by the Railway Board as well as Divisional Railway Manager. However, when the respondent/original applicant was not given appointment, he made representation, upon which the petitioners declined appointment to the respondent/original applicant on the ground that a criminal case was registered against him in the year 2012. 3. The petitioner-Union of India took a stand that the respondent/original applicant was not fit to be given appointment, because he had been convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code by a competent court, and moreover, the respondent/original applicant had not mentioned in his application form the details of such conviction. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur is bad, as it did not consider the fact that the respondent/original applicant had willfully concealed the information regarding his conviction, as above. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent/original applicant however, submits that the impugned order is justified, as while recording conviction of the respondent/original applicant for the offences under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, City (South), Udaipur, had granted him the benefit of probation under Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, and thus, the respondent/original applicant was in fact eligible for compassionate appointment. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/original applicant relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent/original applicant relied upon the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., (2016) 8 SCC 471 , relevant paras 38.4 and 38.4.1 of which read as under:- 38.4 In case there is suppression or false information of involvement in a criminal case where conviction or acquittal had already been recorded before filling of the application/verification form and such fact later comes to knowledge of employer, any of the following recourse appropriate to the case may be adopted:- 38.4.1 In a case trivial in nature in which conviction had been recorded, such as shouting slogans at young age or for a petty offence which if disclosed would not have rendered an incumbent unfit for post in question, the employer may, in its discretion, ignore such suppression of fact or false information by condoning the lapse. 7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties as well as examining the record of the case, along with the precedent law cited at the Bar, this Court finds that the respondent/original applicant was offered compassionate appointment on the post of Hammal Khalasi, and admittedly, he was convicted under Sections 341, 323 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code along with the benefit of probation under Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958. 8. The afore-quoted para 38.4.1 of the precedent law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors. is directly applicable in the present facts, as the allegation and the conviction against the respondent/original applicant are trivial in nature, and moreover, Section 41 of the Probation of Offenders Act would not render the respondent/original applicant ineligible for compassionate appointment. Thus, the petitioners should have ignored the aforementioned conviction of the respondent/original applicant. 9. In light of the aforesaid observations, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal is well reasoned and does not call for any interference by this Court. 10. Consequently, the present writ petition is dismissed.