Government job appointment pending on 498a trail
srikanth
(Querist) 30 July 2013
This query is : Resolved
Dear Sir,
These are my details.
Nadeem Qureshi
(Expert) 30 July 2013
Dear Querist
It's depend on the Railway's policy if there is any restriction then you can not get the Job otherwise you are eligible to get the Job.
send RTI application and demand Copy of terms and conditions or Department Policy regarding joining
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 30 July 2013
Yes, wait for its decision.
Generally in domestic violence cases the govt. does not pay much importance.
If the wait becomes unending then file Writ petition.
R.K Nanda
(Expert) 30 July 2013
nothing to add.
Guest
(Expert) 12 August 2013
Better wait for decision of the competent authority, but appointment seems to be possible only after honourable acquittal in the case.
srikanth
(Querist) 25 October 2013
These are my details furnished.
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2013
what is the stage of your 498A case? it appears that appointing authority is awaiting decision in your case .
what is the backlog of cases in the court wherein your case is pending . ?
you will have to wait for decision in your case .
if you are acquitted appointing authority will have to appoint you as there is no suppression of facts and you have disclosed the pending case in the attestation form
ajay sethi
(Expert) 25 October 2013
Government cannot cancel appointment of candidate on the ground that 498A or a criminal case is pending
September 13, 2012
Central Administrative Tribunal – Lucknow
Vineet Kumar Aged About 32 Years … vs Union Of India Through Secretary, … on 12 September, 2012
Original Application No. 331/2011
This the 12th day of September, 2012
Honble Mr. Justice Alok Kumar Singh, Member (J)
Honble Sri S.P.Singh, Member (A)
Vineet Kumar aged about 32 years son of Sri Vijay Pal Singh resident of 741, Civil Lines, Kalyani Devi, Unnao.
.
Applicant
By Advocate: Sri P.K. Srivastava
Versus
1. Union of India through Secretary, Ministry of Home Affairs, Govt. of India, New Delhi.
2. Director, Central Bureau of Investigation, Govt. of India, 5B, 7th Floor, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
3. Staff Selection Commission, through its Chairman, Block No.12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
4. The Regional Director (NR), Staff Selection Commission, Block No. 12, CGO Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-110003.
Respondents
By Advocate: Sri S.P. Singh
(Reserved on 10.9.2012)
17. Thus in the case before us, firstly there is no concealment at all in respect of involvement in the criminal case. Admittedly the applicant had furnished all the required information with all the particulars. Therefore, the show cause notice in respect of alleged concealment was ab-anitio wrong and against the record and when this fact was specifically pointed out in the reply it was not dealt with at all in the impugned order. Instead the impugned order was passed on a new ground i.e. merely on the ground of involvement in a criminal case, though it has been nowhere provided either in any law or in the Manual of CBI (Admn.) or in the conditions of the relevant advertisement that candidature or selection can be cancelled on this ground. On the converse in para 2.2.7 of the chapt. 2 of the Manual of CBI (Admn.) (as pleaded in O.A. (which is not controverted in C.A.) that even if a person is a convict, he can be appointed after obtaining approval of the Govt., if appointing authority feels that there are redeeming features and reasons to believe that the person has cured himself of the weakness, if any. In the present case, such facts were not considered at all and there was no application of mind by the appointing authority on these points. In fact, appointing authority has not passed any order whatsoever. After receiving of verification report the dossier was admittedly sent from CBI to the Commission which issued show cause notice dated 12.5.2011 and then impugned order dated 17.6.2011 was passed by the Commission cancelling the candidature of the applicant. But even the Commission was not sure as to who took the actual decision. It is a typical order which has been passed by the Commission saying the CBI has decided not to appoint him and at the same time, it is mentioned that Commission has also decided the same. But there is neither any separate decision of the CBI nor any such joint decision of both of them on record. Secondly, as has been observed in the cases of Ram Kumar (Supra ) and Harendra Panwar (supra) in the present case also, no such satisfaction has been recorded by the appointing authority that the applicant was not fit or suitable to be appointed to the post in question. Thirdly, the applicant has been ultimately acquitted in the criminal case and no appeal has been filed which, as laid down in the case of Awadhesh Kumar Sharma (Supra), would mean that he was not involved in any criminal case on the alleged date because the judgment of acquittal in his favour operates retrospectively. Fourthly, it is trite in law that mere involvement in a criminal case is not an impediment for appointment and after acquittal ,the stigma attached to a person is obliterated.
18. In the conspectus of the discussion made hereinabove and having regard to the preposition of law laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the aforesaid judgments, this O.A. is partly allowed. The impugned order dated 17.6.2011 cancelling the candidature of the applicant (Roll No. 0901040793-OBC) is hereby quashed. The other order which has been impugned dated 12.5.2011 is in fact an information furnished under Right to Information Act and as such in respect of it neither any order can be passed nor it is required to be passed. In the follow up action, the opposite parties are directed to appoint the applicant on the post in question in pursuance of his selection, expeditiously. No order as to costs.
(S.P.Singh) (Justice Alok Kumar Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
HLS/-
srikanth
(Querist) 25 October 2013
These are my details furnished.
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 25 October 2013
File petition under Article 227 of the Constitution in the high court for expeditious hearing. The court would surely direct the trial court to conclude the trial in a time frame generally within 6 months.
srikanth
(Querist) 26 October 2013
Detils furnished please
ajay sethi
(Expert) 26 October 2013
we have advised you to move HC for expediting hearing of your 498A case . Hc can direct expedited disposal of your case .
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 26 October 2013
we have already advised. rEAD OUR REPLIES CAREFULLY.
