1 S.B.CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.6084/2006 Nand Kishore Mali v. Nuclear Power Corporation of India & Anr. Date of Order :: 16th July, 2008 HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE GOVIND MATHUR Mr. R.S.Charan, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Bhansali, for the respondents. .... As a consequent to the selection, an offer of Traineeship for the post of Stipendiary Trainee for the Rajasthan Atomic Power Project-5&6 was made to the petitioner on 27.2.2006 by Nuclear Training Centre, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd. with several conditions including the condition No.11 in the terms that “the Corporation reserves the right to terminate your training at any time without any notice and without assigning any reasons thereof. Verification of your character and antecedents by District Authority and Intelligence Bureau, is in progress, if anything found adverse in verification report, your traineeship will be terminated immediately without any further notice”. In pursuant to the offer referred above, the petitioner joined the respondent establishment on 3.4.2006 as Stipendiary Trainee. Relevant to note here that while submitting an application to be considered 2 for engagement as Stipendiary Trainee the petitioner disclosed the fact that he was arrested on 17.8.2001 in connection with an FIR No.233/01 and case No.1375/01 and he was prosecuted for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 118 and 109 IPC. He also provided adequate information regarding his acquittal by the competent court on 11.3.2005. By an order dated 9.6.2006 of the Additional Deputy General Manager (Human Resources), Nuclear Training Centre, Nuclear Power Corporation of India Ltd., the traineeship of the petitioner was terminated in terms of para 11 quoted above. Being aggrieved by the same, this petition for writ is preferred. The argument advanced to challenge the order dated 9.6.2006 is that the traineeship was offered to the petitioner by keeping well within the knowledge regarding prosecution of the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 364-A, 302, 201, 118 and 109 IPC and regarding his acquittal by the competent court, as such no reason was available for the respondents to terminate the traineeship. In reply to the writ petition the stand of the respondents is that on considering character and antecedents of the petitioner and looking to the sensitive nature of the respondent organisation, a conscious decision was taken to terminate the traineeship given to the petitioner. A reliance is 3 also placed on behalf of the respondents upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and others v. Sushil Kumar, reported in (1996)11 SCC 605. This Court by an order dated 17.4.2008 directed the respondents to make available the notings and material on basis of which the competent authority framed opinion warranting termination of the petitioner's traineeship. The respondents, accordingly, have provided all necessary details. The Collector, Chittorgarh by a communication dated 13.2.2006 verified the fact that the petitioner faced a criminal trial wherein he was acquitted by the competent court vide judgment dated 11.3.2005. A copy of the judgment was also sent by the Collector, Chittorgarh to the respondents. The Intelligence Bureau (Ministry of Home Affairs) Government of India, vide a memorandum dated 27.4.2006 informed the respondents that “Nand Kishore Mali has not come to adverse notice. However, the candidate has already mentioned in his AF/SSQ forms that a case vide FIR No.233/2001 U/s 364-A, 302, 201, 118, 109 IPC was registered against him and he remained for 5 months in judicial custody. Late on he was acquitted by the court on 11.3.2005 due to benefit of doubt”. 4 On basis of the information received, a note was made by the Assistant Manager (HRM) seeking necessary guidelines regarding verification of character and antecedents of the petitioner in following terms:- “Shri Nand Kishore Mali, was acquitted on benefit of doubt. Report of District Magistrate, Chittorgarh and copy of judgment is placed in the file for kind perusal and guidelines for offer of traineeship to the concerned candidate. However, candidate has also mentioned the fact in his C&A verification formats.” The Senior Manager (HRM), after considering all necessary facts, made a note as follows:- “Once, Shri Mali is acquitted by Court of Law from the charges under Sec.302, 364-A, 201 of Indian Penal Code against him on benefit of doubt, he can be allowed to join as he has also disclosed above facts to the 'Attestation Form' submitted by him. However, L.O. May kindly see from legal angle. AGM (HR) may also kindly see.” The Law Officer of the respondent establishment, on receiving the record from Senior Manager (HRM), made a note as follows:- 5 “Upon perusal of 'Attestation Form' submitted by applicant Shri Nanad Kishore Mali it is found that Shri Nand Kishore was arrested by police station Hirenmagary Distt. Udaipur as a co-accused alongwith one Lalitkumar Vaishnava for the offences punishable u/s 302, 364-A & 201 of Indian Penal Code – 1890, and he was in the judicial custody for the period of 5 months & 9 days and thereafter released on bail by High Court of Jodhpur. The offence for which Shri Nand Kishore and Lalitkumar were prosecuted has related with murder, kidnapping & distraction of evidence. Charge-sheet against both the accuse was filed before Additional Session Judge, Udaipur for the offences mentioned above. The Hon'able Additional Session Judge found accused no. 1 Shri Lalitkumar as a guilty for the offences punishable u/s 302 & 201 of IPC & sentenced him for life imprisonment. The accuse no. 2 Shri Nand Kishore was released by giving benefit of doubt, he was not released on merit of the case. Considering seriousness of the offences & period spent by the applicant behind the bars i.e. 5 months & 9 days, he may not be consider for the appointment in our sensitive organization. Sd/- 27.5.06 Law Officer” On basis of the opinion of the Law Officer, the Additional General Manager (HR) made a note that “in view of the above, his traineeship may be terminated immediately”. 6 With the background, as stated above, the traineeship of the petitioner was terminated. On examination of the entire record, it reveals that even before offering traineeship to the petitioner the respondent establishment was having knowledge regarding the prosecution faced by the petitioner. The respondents were also having a copy of the judgment passed by the competent court acquitting the petitioner prior to offering traineeship being received under communication dated 13.2.2006 from the Collector, Chittorgarh. As such, the material i.e. made foundation to terminate traineeship of the petitioner was well within the knowledge of the respondents before making an offer for traineeship on 27.2.2006. The clause (11) of the offer of appointment mentions that the verification of character and antecedents before the District authority and Intelligence Bureau were in progress and if anything found adverse, the traineeship of the petitioner shall be terminated. In the instant matter, as a matter of fact the verification of character and antecedents by District authorities was already made prior to 27.2.2006 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the respondents to examine character and antecedents of the petitioner after making an offer for traineeship that resulted into acceptance by the petitioner. 7 So far as the remarks made by the Intelligence Bureau are concerned, suffice to mention that the bureau specifically stated that no adverse was noticed relating to the petitioner. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Delhi Administration through its Chief Secretary and others (supra) was dealing with a case in which irrespective of the discharge/acquittal from the offence punishable under Section 304 IPC the character and antecedents of the person seeking employment were not found satisfactory, whereas in the present case nothing adverse is said either by the District Administration or by the Intelligence Bureau. In nothings, the officers to have not said anything that may be adverse to the character and antecedents of the petitioner. It is only the Law Officer who opined for not considering the petitioner for appointment, however, that is only due to the reason that the petitioner faced a trial wherein he was acquitted by extending benefit of doubt. It is true that the petitioner was acquitted by giving benefit of doubt, but the respondents while taking a decision to terminate the traineeship have not given any reason as to how the prosecution of the petitioner, that ultimately resulted in acquittal makes his character and antecedents adverse for 8 continuing traineeship, specially, in the circumstances that, no adverse report was given by the District Administration and the Intelligence Bureau. In such circumstances, the decision of the respondents to terminate traineeship of the petitioner is apparently bad. The same, therefore, deserves to be quashed. Accordingly, this petition for writ is allowed. The order impugned dated 9.6.2006 terminating the traineeship of the petitioner is quashed. The respondents are directed to restore the petitioner as Stipendiary Trainee as he was prior to issuance of the order impugned dated 9.6.2006. No order to costs. ( GOVIND MATHUR ),J. kkm/ps.