Dismissed

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal v. the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Rajasthan HC30 Jan 2019CW/1571/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenging removal order due to alleged lack of regular enquiry. Court finds petitioner wrongfully claimed to be Ex-Serviceman in recruitment form to get appointment under quota with lower marks. Court holds invocation of special procedure under Rule 4.12 for showing cause in such cases is justified as regular enquiry not reasonably practicable. Writ dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No interference with the order of termination of service; writ petition dismissed.

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Rajasthan HC (2019)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

¶2

S.B. Civil Writs No. 1571/2019

¶3

Akash Kumar Son Of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal, Aged About 32 Years, Resident Of A-508 Rampura Road Graden-4, Patrakar Colony, Jaipur, Permanent Resident Of 254/1, Nehru Nagar, Garh Road, Meerut, Uttar Pradesh- 250001.

¶4

----Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

The Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur Through Its CMD.

¶7

The Executive Director (Corporation Affairs), Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶8

The General Manager (Civil), Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited, Khanij Bhawan, Tilak Marg, Jaipur.

¶9

----Respondents

¶10

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahamad, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. R.A. Katta, Adv.

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA

¶12

Order

¶13

30/01/2019

¶14

1. The petitioner by way of this writ petition assails the order dated 29.12.2018 passed by the respondents whereby penalty of removal was passed by the respondents after having satisfied that the appointment of the petitioner was based on a false statement made in his application form wherein he wrongfully made entry of being an Ex-Servicemen. The petitioner assails the order on the ground that no regular enquiry was conducted.

¶15

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the attestation form which he had submitted after being offered

¶16

(2 of 5)

¶17

[CW-1571/2019]

¶18

appointment he has nowhere mentioned that he is an ExServiceman and thus there is no concealment on his part. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has already been continued on the post after having completed probation period and there was no occasion for passing order of removal.

¶19

3. The respondents however entered into a caveat and have also filed their reply and have submitted that the action for removal was undertaken as per the procedure laid down under para 4.12 which carves out an exception to normal rule of conducting a regular enquiry. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that it is a case where the petitioner misrepresented himself as an Ex-Serviceman and on account of his name falling in the category of ExServiceman, in spite of having lesser percentage of marks, was offered appointment. Thus, the petitioner’s case was examined in terms of para 4.12 which allows the Disciplinary Authority to show cause an employee giving him opportunity of making representation in cases where it is satisfied that it would not be reasonably practicable to hold a regular enquiry. In the present case, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice mentioning therein the provisions of Rule 4.12 and was asked to make available documents in support of his representation that he was an Ex-Serviceman. It was also informed that while conducting regular scrutiny of the documents the management came to know that the petitioner had not made available any supporting documents to show that he was an Ex-Serviceman. Learned counsel submits that upon receiving the show cause notice the petitioner has continued to assert that he was an Ex-Serviceman and also sought time to make available the relevant documents.

¶20

(3 of 5) [CW-1571/2019]

¶21

However no documents were produced in support of his submissions that of being an Ex-Serviceman. In the circumstances, learned counsel submits that the department has taken the decision to remove him from service invoking Rule 4.12. 5. I have heard both the counsels, find that the JMRC Conduct, Discipline & Appeal Rules, 2017 (JMRC CDA Rules, 2017) provided procedure for imposing minor and major penalties however as per para 4.12 Special Procedure in Certain Cases has been provided as

¶22

under:-

¶23

“ 4.12 SPECIAL PROCEDURE IN CERTAIN

¶24

CASES (SF-14 & 15)

¶25

Nothwithstanding anything contained in Rules4.8 or 4.9 or 4.10, the Disciplinary Authority may impose any of the penalties specified in Rule-4.4 in any of the following circumstances:

¶26

a) Where the employee has been convicted on a criminal charge, or on the strength of facts or conclusions arrived at by a judicial trial; or

¶27

b) Where the Disciplinary Authority is satisfied for reasons to be recorded by it in writing that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry in the manner provided in these rules; or

¶28

c) Where the Managing Director is satisfied that in the interest of the security of the corporation, it is not expedient to hold any inquiry in the manner provided in these rules. Provided that, the employee may be given an opportunity for making representation in the penalty proposed to be imposed before any order is made.

¶29

d) Notwithstanding anything contained to the contrary in any other rules, the services of any employee shall be terminated by the Corporation, if the employee remains on unauthorised absence for sixty days or more and

¶30

(4 of 5)

¶31

[CW-1571/2019]

¶32

he fails to explain his conduct satisfactorily within 15 days from the date of receipt of the ‘Show Cause Notice’ by him. The management shall be empowered to take a decision without resorting to further inquiries.

¶33

The decision in the above case would be taken by a Committee of officers at appropriate level to be constituted for this purpose by the Managing Director. The reasons for the decision would be recorded in writing.”

¶34

6. Invoking para 4.12, the petitioner was served with a show cause notice to which the petitioner replied seeking 15 days time for submitting the documents. The petitioner has nowhere denied that he was not an Ex-Serviceman. He has also nowhere stated that the application form filed by him erroneously mentioned him to be Ex-Serviceman category. Thus, his attempt for recruitment has been based on a misrepresentation. A false entry has been made in the provisional registration form submitted by the petitioner and on the basis thereof his name was placed in the select list in the category of Ex-Servicemen Quota. There were two posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) available for the Ex-Servicemen quota and the petitioner who had secured only 43.25% marks was appointed under the said quota. It is also noticed that under the Open Category (General) the last candidate, who has been appointed, secured 66.75% marks and the petitioner falls much lower in merit even those candidates who have secured appointment under the other categories namely SC, OBC and ST category, have secured much higher marks.

¶35

7. Taking into consideration the aforesaid facts, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner was appointed on the post treating him as an Ex-Serviceman alone. Petitioner was having full

¶36

(5 of 5)

¶37

[CW-1571/2019]

¶38

knowledge of these facts but never attempted to get the record straightened. In the circumstances, the action of the respondents invoking recourse to Rule 4.12 of the JMRC CDA Rules 2017 cannot be said to be unjustified or illegal having taken action under Rule 4.12, and after giving a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, order of termination of service has been passed.

¶39

8. This Court does not find any error in the said order. Accordingly, no case is made out for interference. The writ petition is dismissed.

¶40

(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J

¶41

R.Vaishnav
83.

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal v. the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Akash Kumar Son of Shri Ashok Kumar Kansal v. the Jaipur Metro Rail Corporation Limited

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S C I M M Co. Birla Ltd. Vs State and Ors.

Dr. Jc Verma Vs State and Ors.

Mubina Vs State of Raj and Anr.

Manoj Sharma S/O Shri Kanahiya Lal Sharma Vs State of Rajasthan through the Principal Secretary

Ram Chandra Vs State of Raj and Ors.

Ram Singh Medatiya Vs R S R T C Jaipur