SUNIL KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

Citation: [2005] 1 S.C.R. 25 · Decided: 04-01-2005 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

SUN!L KUMAR SINGH 
A 
\ *· 
V. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. 
JANUARY 4, 2005 
[ARIJIT PASAYAT AND S.H. KAPADIA, JJ.] 
B 
--<. 
Service Law-Post and Telegraph Department-Contractual appointment 
of Extra Department Delivery Agent(EDDA)/Extra Departmental Mail 
Carrier(EDMC)-Criminal case instituted against him-Initially his bail c 
application was rejected by the Magistrate but subsequently bail was granted 
by the Sessions Judge-Authorities concerned though aware of the criminal 
case, permitted him to join after release from custody-Tribunal set aside the 
appointment of Appellant and directed fresh selection out of candidates other 
than the Appellant-High Court upheld the order-On appeal, held: Whether 
Appellant deserved to be continued was not independently examined by the D 
authorities-By the time High Court decided the matter, Appellant had already 
been acquitted-The effect of such acquittal was also not considered by High 
Court-Non-appearance of Appellant before Tribunal could not be the 
determinative factor-It is also not clear whether order of Tribunal directing 
fresh consideration has been carried out or not-In such peculiar E 
circumstances, matter remitted to High Court for fresh consideration-At the 
same time official Respondents permitted to consider whether contractual 
appointment of Appellant is to be continued or not. 
The Appellant was selected and posted on contractual basis as Extra 
Departmental Delivery Agent(EDDA)-cum-Extra Departmental Mail F 
Carrier(EDMC) in the post office. Pursuant to Appellant joining the post, 
a petition was filed before CAT by Respondent No.6 claiming that he had 
secured higher marks than the Appellant and that Appellant was involved 
in a criminal case of kidnapping a college going girl. Though Appellant 
did not appear before the CAT, the official Respondents took the stand 
that he was allowed to join only after clean report about him was given G 
by the Officer-in-Charge of the Police Station. 
·'>-
The Tribunal set aside the appointment order and directed that fresh 
selection should be made and the candidates other than the Appellant were 
to be considered for appointment. High Court affirmed the same. 
H 
25 
26 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2005) I S.C.R. 
A 
In appeal to this Court, the Appellant submitted that a false case 
had been lodged against him which was amply proved by his acquittal by 
the Trial Court, it was a clean acquittal and not on technical ground; and 
that there was no material to show that the Appellant had any criminal 
antecedents, or that he was an undesirable person. 
B 
The official 'Respondents however submitted that the fact that the 
Appellant was involved in a criminal charge made him undesirable and 
therefore this Court should not interfere under Art.136 of the Constitution. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
C 
HELD: I.I. The conclusions of the CAT as upheld by the High 
Court revolve round the appellant facing a criminal trial. At the time of 
issuing appointment order the case had not been initiated. Though the case 
was instituted, the same has ended in acquittal. It was open to the 
concerned official respondents to terminate the contractual appointment. 
D 1t is to be noted that the appellant was permitted to join after his release 
from custody. Though, the authorities were aware of the criminal case 
against him, they did not put an end to the contractual appointment. It 
was only pursuant to the CA T's order on the basis of a petition filed by 
an unsuccessful candidate that the appointment was nullified. Whether the 
appellant deserved to be continued had not been independently examined 
E by the authorities. By the time the High Court decided the matter, the 
appellant had already been acquitted. The effect of such acquittal has also 
not been considered by the High Court. Mere non-appearance of the 
appellant before CAT could not have held to be the determinative factor. 
It is also not clear from the records whether the order of the CAT directing 
F 
G 
H 
fresh consideration has been carried out or not. 128-G-H; 29-A-Bl 
1.2. In the peculiar circumstances the matter is remitted to the High 
Court for a fresh consideration. At the same time it is open to the official 
respondents to consider whether the contractual appointment of appellant 
is to be continued or not in the background facts of the case. 129-C) 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 13 of 2005. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.7.2003 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.