Sanjay Kumar vs Union of India and Others

Gita Mittal, J.—By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the order dated 2nd June, 2011 terminating his service as a Constable/driver with the Central Reserve Police Force and the order dated 18th August, 2011 passed by the respondent no. 4 rejecting the petitioner''s revision petition. The facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are in a narrow compass and largely undisputed. The petitioner was issued a driving licence on the 17th November, 2008 which bore no. 83920/Mth by the District Transport Office, Thoubal, Manipur which was valid for the period from 17th November, 2008 to 16th November, 2011.

It appears that the petitioner thereafter applied for a licence from the Haryana Transport Authority inasmuch as he was residing in the state of Haryana on the 30th June, 2009. The petitioner was issued a new driving licence by the Haryana Transport Authorities which bore the number 1591/C-2/09 with the validity period upto 10th November, 2011. It needs to be borne in mind that this new driving licence was issued on the basis of the driving licence bearing no. 83920/Mth issued by the District Transport Office, Thoubal, Manipur.

The petitioner has contended that the Haryana Transport Authorities had conducted due verification and ensured the validity of the driving licence issued to the petitioner at Thoubal, Manipur prior to issuance of new licence to the petitioner. This submission by the petitioner is supported by the plea taken by the District Transport Officer, NUH, Mewat, Haryana/respondent no. 5 before us in the counter affidavit wherein it is submitted that the driving licence issued in favour of the petitioner by the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur, was renewed on 30th June, 2009 by the District Transport Officer, NUH, Mewat, Haryana after completion of all formalities.

It appears that pursuant to an advertisement issued in 2009 regarding filling up of the vacancy for the post of Constable/Driver in the Central Reserve Police Force, the petitioner applied for appointment to the said post. As required, he submitted all required documents including those relating to his driving licence. It is submitted by Ms. Avni Singh, learned counsel for the petitioner that he had duly given details of the driving licence no. 83920/Mth.

After a rigorous selection process and having fulfilled all eligibility requirements relevant to the appointment, the petitioner was issued an order of appointment to the post of Constable (Driver). The petitioner joined duties on 25th July, 2009 at the Group Centre, CRPF, Gandhinagar, Gujarat wherefrom he was sent to the Recruit Training Centre, Avadi for basic training. The petitioner submits that he was found physically and medically fit and also satisfactorily participated in the heavy vehicle driving test carried out both at the time of selection as well as during the basic training at Avadi. As per prescribed process, the respondents no. 1 & 3 proceeded with the matter of verification of documents of the selected candidates.

The respondents have placed reliance on three letters dated 4th August, 2009; 15th October, 2009 & 6th January, 2010 which were sent to the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur seeking verification of the driving licence bearing no. 83920/Mth which had been issued to the petitioner in Manipur.

In response thereto, the respondents received a letter dated 18th January, 2010 whereby the respondent no. 4 writing from Manipur, informed the DIGP, GC, Gandhinagar, Gujarat that the petitioner had been issued a driving licence on 17th November, 2008 which was valid upto 16th November, 2011. However, the number of such driving licence was wrongly mentioned as "83902/Mth.

This error was repeated in the letters dated 28th February, 2010; 21st April, 2010 as well as the letter dated 7th October, 2011.

It appears that the respondent nos. 1 to 3 sought clarification from the respondent no. 4 about the petitioner''s driving licence. In response to the respondents letter dated 12th February, 2011, the respondent no. 4 from the office of the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur issued a letter dated 28th February, 2011 upon verifications from the record which reads as follows:-

With reference to your letter No. V-I-I/2011 dated the 12th Feb. 2011 on the above cited subject, I am to inform you that the Driving Licence Nos. 83902/Mth is standing in the name of Sanjay Kumar S/O Bani Singh of VPO Khusputeh and Dist. Rewari. Haryana and DL No. 83920/Mth is standing in the name of S.N. Mandal S/O B.N. Mandal, Vill and PO Rebari, Dist. Dhubri, Assam. The details are given below

It is as per record maintained by this Office.

(Emphasis supplied)

We find that in the counter affidavit which has been filed, the respondents have admitted receipt of an earlier letter from respondent no. 4 setting out the same position as above. In para 6, it is stated that by the letter dated 29th December, 2010, the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur had informed them that the driving licence no. 83920 which has been issued to the petitioner was correct and that differences may have arisen on account of clerical error.

In view of the erroneous communications received from the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur, to the effect that the petitioner was holding driving licence no. 83902/Mth, the respondents proceeded to issue a notice dated 2nd May, 2011 to the petitioner purporting to be in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 5(1) of the Central Civil Services (Temporary Services) Rules, 1965 informing him that his services would stand terminated with effect from the date of expiry of the period of one month from the date on which the notice was served upon him.

Faced with this difficult situation, the petitioner proceeded to the office of the respondent no. 4 personally whereupon a letter dated 12th May, 2011 was issued by the respondent no. 4 to the respondent no. 3 re-affirming the validity and correctness of the licence issued to the petitioner as well as the fact that the same bore no. 83920/Mth. The respondent no. 4 specifically stated that the reply furnished by his office by the letter dated 7th October, 2010 was erroneous and wrong.

The petitioner has submitted that he had placed this communication before the respondents. However, no heed was given thereof. Instead an order dated 2nd June, 2011 was passed terminating his services without any further inquiry.

It is noteworthy that the letter dated 12th May, 2011 was written and signed by Mr. Simon Keishing, the very officer who had issued the letters dated 18th January, 2010 and 7th October, 2010. Interestingly, the petitioner''s driving licence no. 83920/Mth has been signed and issued by the same officer.

The petitioner assailed the order of termination dated 2nd June, 2011 by way of Revision Petition dated 17th June, 2011. However, the same was rejected unceremoniously by an order passed on 18th August, 2011. The rejection ignored the communication dated 29th December, 2010 admittedly received by the respondent no. 3 as well as the letter dated 12th May, 2011 placed by the petitioner on record before the respondent authorities.

The petitioner has assailed the order of termination dated 2nd June, 2011 as well as the revisional order dated 18th of August, 2011 by way of the present petition. As noted above, the petitioner has impleaded the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur as respondent no. 4 apart from the authorities who had passed the impugned order.

The counter affidavit filed in opposition to the writ petition has disclosed that the respondents have commenced a verification of the licences under orders of the DIG. It is informed by the respondent nos. 1 to 3 that re-verification was requested by their Transport Department based whereon further communications were exchanged with the District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur. Photocopies of the letters sent by the respondent no. 3 and the response dated 25th April, 2012 from the respondent no. 4 have been produced and have been taken on record.

The communication bearing no. 3/11/DL/DTO/TBL dated 25th April, 2012 has been received by the respondents from Mr. Simon Keishing, District Transport Officer, Thoubal, Manipur. In this letter, the respondent no. 4 reiterates the fact that driving licence no. 83920/Mth stood issued to the petitioner. The communication also states that driving licence no. 83902/Mth was issued to Shri S.N. Mandal. The author of this letter has requested a pardon from the DIGP for the wrong information furnished in the letter dated 28th February, 2011. Regret has been expressed for the wrong information which was furnished. It is noteworthy that the said Shri Keishing has enclosed two photocopies of the driving licences noted above.

The above narration would show that the show cause notice and the impugned orders of termination dated 2nd June, 2011 and 18th August, 2011 resulted merely on account of the erroneous communications which the respondent no. 3 received from the respondent no. 4. The respondent no. 3 has conducted a verification and re-verification and has received the correct information based thereon.

It is an admitted position that the only reason on which the show cause notice was issued to the petitioner and his services were terminated was the fact that the driving licence no. 83920/Mth was not verified by the concerned authority as having been validly issued to the petitioner. This position was factually erroneous and the order dated 2nd June, 2011 as well as the revisional order dated 18th August, 2011 against the petitioner based thereon are, therefore, not sustainable. In view of the above, we direct as follows:-

(i) The orders dated 2nd June, 2011 & 18th August, 2011 are hereby set aside and quashed.

(ii) As a result, the petitioner shall stand reinstated in service. Appropriate orders in this behalf be passed within four weeks and communicated immediately thereafter to the petitioner.

(iii) It is further directed that the petitioner shall be entitled to the benefits of notional seniority. The petitioner shall be deemed to have been continued in service as if the order dated 2nd June, 2011 has not intervened, for all purposes including computation of his pension. The petitioner shall, however, not be entitled to back wages. The respondents shall pass orders in terms of these directions within four weeks as well as communicate the same to the petitioner.

This writ petition is allowed in the above terms.