Judgment:
Mr M.L. Chauhan, Member (J)
1. The applicant has filed this OA, thereby praying for the following reliefs:
8.1 Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances of the case the Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to direct the respondents to produce the record of above said case.
8.2 Direct the respondent to reinstate the applicant since date of suspension 29.12.82 till date of acquittal 14.08.06. Further up to 31.12.09 when the applicant has been dismissed for last time by Disciplinary Authority which was quashed by Board of Inquiry Decision dated 10.06.2010 and has made entitled the applicant will all consequential benefits as demanded by Annexure A-11 and A-15 i.e. noticed dated 01.03.2011.
8.3 That direct the respondent to comply their order dated 10.06.2010 Annexure A-19.
8.4 That any other or further relief which the Hon’ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be awarded in favour of the applicant.
8.5 That the cost of the proceeding may kindly be granted in favour of the applicant.
2. As can be seen from the relief clause, the grievance of the applicant is regarding reinstatement of the applicant in service since the date of suspension 29.12.1982 till date of acquittal 14.08.05 with a further prayer that applicant be given all consequential benefits up to 31.12.09 when the applicant has been dismissed for the last time by Disciplinary Authority. For that purpose, applicant has placed reliance upon the Board of Inquiry Decision dated 10.06.2010 (Annexure A-19). It may be stated here that the applicant had earlier filed OA No.3110/20010 for the same relief. However, the Tribunal vide order dated 20.09.201, without hearing the respondents, disposed of the OA at the admission stage with a direction to consider the report of Board of Inquiry as mentioned at Annexure A-1 and his appeal-cum-notice annexed at page 54 and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order within a period of three months. Pursuant to the direction given by this Tribunal the respondents have passed the impugned order dated 08.12.2010 (Annexure A-1). At this stage, it will be relevant to quite the relevant part of the said order, which thus reads:
“As per direction of Hon’ble Central Administration Tribunal, New Delhi dated 20.09.10 vide O.A. No. 3130/10, DRM/NDLS has examined the submission made in the above said Original (OA) application and find that :-
In view of above, this OA is disposed of at the admission stage itself, without going into the merits of the case by directing the respondents to consider the report of Board of Inquiry as mentioned at annexure A-1 and his appeal-cum-notice annexed at page 54 and decide the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order with in a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this under intimation to the applicant. No order as to costs.
In compliance of Hon’ble CAT/NDLS orders dated 20.09.2010, your case has been examined as per record available and it is revealed that you were charge sheeted under criminal proceeding by the RPF/Thana, New Delhi dated 29.12.82 for unlawful possession of Rly. Property.
You were absent from duty w.e.f. 8.5.83 to 24.11.83 for which SF-5 was issued to you under DandAR and you were awarded punishment of WIT for two years in this case.
Thereafter, you did not turn up for duty and as per administrative decision you were transferred to CWM/JUDW but you did not carry out the transfer orders and remained absent unauthorisedely from your duties. The disciplinary Authority had issued another SF-5 under DandAR for this lapse. You were removed from Rly. Service vide this office letter of even number dated 23.8.93.
Subsequently, you had filed an O.A. No. 2302/2007 and RA No.32/2008 in the Honble CAT Principal Bench/New Delhi, but the same was dismissed by the Honble CAT/NDLS vide judgment dated 7.3.08.
It is also mentioned here that you were acquitted in case on 14.8.2006 which was registered against you under RP (UP) Act) case no. 35/82) registered on 29.12.82 but the punishment of removal from service awarded to you for unauthorized absent from duties holds good. Your appeal was also not considered by the competent authority being time barred.
Now, as regards your claim that some Board of Inquiry was set up who has finally reported in your favour. The relevant records have been examined and it is revealed that the said records, copies whereof have been submitted by you are, in fact, forged documents created by you to mislead the court as well as Railway authorities.
You have submitted photocopy of 7.10.08 but on checking the office copy of this letter certain paras are found changed/modified from the original letter dated 7.10.08.
Also the forged report dated 10.6.10, is found a forged one since this copy submitted by you have not been issued by this office under the signature of Sh. S.P. Sharma APO/M, as certified by him.
3. As can be seen from the portion, as quoted above, it is clear that the respondents have categorically stated that there was no report of Board of Inquiry in favour of applicant and further that the applicant had submitted forged documents in the earlier OA, on the basis of which the direction was given by this Tribunal to pass a reasoned and speaking order. Respondents have also categorically stated that the report dated 10.06.2010 of the Board of Inquiry is a forged document, as this document has not been issued by the office under the signature of Shri S.P. Sharma, APO/M.
4. Respondents have further categorically stated that the applicant is not entitled to any relief on the ground that the services of the applicant were terminated, as he remained absent from duty, which order was challenged by the applicant filed filing OA No.2302/2007, which OA was dismissed by the Tribunal and the review filed against the said decision, registered as RA No.32/2008 was also dismissed by the Tribunal vide order dated 07.03.2008. Thus, according to the respondents no relief can be granted to the applicant. Respondents have categorically stated that removal of the applicant from service has nothing to with the acquittal of the applicant in criminal case, inasmuch as in Criminal Case No.35/82 the applicant was apprehend by the RPF Staff, New Delhi, at about 7:30 AM from stabling line 1 and 2 in front of Platform No.5, New Delhi while carrying a dynamo belt belonging to the Railway department, unlawfully contained in a rexine bag. Thus, according to the respondents the acquittal of the applicant in criminal case has nothing to do with the departmental enquiry, where the allegation was entirely different, i.e., absence from duty. Thus, according to the respondents, applicant is not entitled to any relief.
5. We have heard learned counsel of the parties and gone through the material placed on record. We are of the view that the applicant is not entitled to be heard and the OA is required to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts from this Tribunal. It may be stated here that in this OA the applicant had not mentioned regarding filing of the previous OA before this Tribunal regarding his removal from service, which judgment has attained finality. Rather in paragraph-7 of the O.A. applicant has categorically stated that he has not filed any Application/Writ Petition or Suit in any Court or in this Tribunal. At this stage, it will be useful to quote para-7 of the OA, which thus reads:
“That the Applicant declares that he has not filed any application, writ petition or suit in any court or in this Tribunal.”
6. Thus, the fact remains that the applicant has suppressed the material facts regarding removal of his service by the department for his absence from duty vide order dated 29.08.1999 and also regarding dismissal of his OA No.2522/2001, whereby the applicant has challenged his removal order and also dismissal of another OA No.2302/2007, which was also dismissed in limine. At this stage, it will be useful to quote the order of this Tribunal dated 11.12.2007 passed in OA-2302/2007, which thus reads:
“Applicant, who was appointed as Chargeman Grade-B on 17.12.1970, was chargesheeted for a long absence from duty for sixteen years. He did not participate in the enquiry proceedings and, therefore, was proceeded ex-parte. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, vide order dated 29.8.99, imposed the penalty of removal from service upon the applicant. This order was challenged to the applicant way back in 2001 when he filed OA 2522/2001. The same was dismissed by a reasoned and speaking order by the Tribunal on 24.9.2001.2. In the present OA filed by the applicant under section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the challenge is to letters dated 30.12.98 and 24.10.2000 vide which two representations made by the applicant were rejected. The representations of the applicant were only with regard to the removal from service and the letters aforesaid came to be issued and before applicant raked up that issue referred to above. The order which has attend finality can not be reopened indirect manner. OA is dismissed in limine. No order as to costs.”
7. As already stated above, applicant has suppressed this material fact of his removal from service and dismissal of the OAs by this Tribunal on two earlier occasions from this Tribunal, which has a material bearing on the facts of this case, as once the applicant has been removed from service he cannot be granted relief, as prayed by him, based upon his acquittal in criminal case, which was entirely on a different allegation, as already stated above. Not only that, applicant has also procured an order from this Tribunal dated 20.09.2011 on the basis of the forged Board of Inquiry decision dated 10.06.2010. The respondents in the reply-affidavit have also stated that applicant has also forged as many as 33 documents mentioned in para-7 of the reply-affidavit and is claiming relief on the basis of these forged documents. Be that as it may, we are of the view that the present OA is required to be dismissed on the ground of suppression of material facts and applicant is also not entitled to any relief even on merit and on the principle of res judicata.
8. At this stage, we wish to refer to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of M/s Prestige Lights Ltd. v. State Bank of India, JT 2007 (10) SC 218, whereby the Apex Court in para-34 has held as under:-
“34. It is well settled that a prerogative remedy is not a matter of course. In exercising extraordinary power, therefore, a Writ Court will indeed bear in mind the conduct of the party who is invoking such jurisdiction. If the applicant does not disclose full facts or suppresses relevant materials or is otherwise guilty of misleading the Court, the Court may dismiss the action without adjudicating the matter. The rule has been evolved in larger public interest to deter unscrupulous litigants from abusing the process of Court by deceiving it. The very basis of the writ jurisdiction rests in disclosure of true, complete and correct facts. If the material facts are not candidly stated or are suppressed or are distorted, the very functioning of the writ courts would become impossible.”
9. In the case in hand, as already stated above, the applicant has challenged his removal from service by filing OA in the year 2001 as well as in the year 2007, which were dismissed by this Tribunal. The applicant has suppressed this material fact from this Tribunal. Not only that, applicant on the basis of the forged report of the Board of Inquiry procured an order dated 20.09.2010 from this Tribunal, thereby the respondents were directed to consider his representation in the light of the such forged document. Thus, it is a case where applicant should have been proceeded further for misleading this Tribunal for procuring order in earlier OA on the basis of forged document and also suppressing the material fact. Be that as it may, we leave the matter here. However, according to us, the conduct of the applicant is such which warrants dismissal of OA without hearing the applicant on merit. That apart, since the quietus has been given by this Tribunal regarding removal of the service of the applicant from 1998 by dismissing the OAs, it is not permissible for us to grant the relief prayed for by the applicant even on merit.
10. In the result, for the foregoing reasons, OA is found bereft of merit, which is accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.