Road accident case can affect my job?
Aaditya Patil
(Querist) 14 October 2015
This query is : Resolved
Respected all
I am selected in Dept of post, offer letter and document verification is yet to be done. But in last weak I got in accident. I was just entered a road running north south from west, As my front wheel of two wheeler entered the road, one two wheeler hit my bikes front wheel badly. He was driving with overspeed and wrong side. Then he and his wife got injured. He has fracture in leg and his wife has small injuries. I am not injured at all. I took them to hospital near village and then called ambulance and send them to district hospital. My bikes front wheel damaged very badly.
Does this accident affect my appointment?
Shall I have to pay any penalty to him?
P. Venu 
(Expert) 14 October 2015
There is no need to worry; the matter does not involve moral turpitude.
Aaditya Patil
(Querist) 14 October 2015
Yet not any FIR registered as he is hospitalized yet, but I think he will file FIR when he get discharge.
RAJU O.F.,
(Expert) 14 October 2015
Don't worry at this stage. Consult a good lawyer practicing in Motor Accidents' Claims Tribunal, who may help you, perhaps to obtain a letter from the other side that the accident was not because of any default of yourself.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 14 October 2015
Not able to agree with Mr Venu. There is need for worry if FIR is registered (whether moral turpitude is there or not).
Buy peace if interested in joining govt.
P. Venu
(Expert) 14 October 2015
There need not be any problem even in the unlikely event of FIR being lodged.
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 16 October 2015
This may not affect the employment prospectus as there is no conviction on the date of appointment.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 16 October 2015
@ Mr P Venu.and Mr Kailaiselvan.
I have always pleasure to agree with you but not so lucky in this case.
A person accused of criminal change cannot join in Govt service (even if he is yet to be convicted).
"None can be presumed guilty till convicted". It is golden principle.
But unfortunately in service jurisprudence the concept is 180% opposite. "Every accused has to be treated guilty till exonerated"
T. Kalaiselvan, Advocate
(Expert) 17 October 2015
Sudhir Sir, There is a concept called that the accused cannot be held guilty until convicted, hope this matches my opinion to the author's query.(?)
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 17 October 2015
I fully agree that
"There is a concept called that the accused cannot be held guilty until convicted, hope this matches my opinion to the author's query.(?) "
I wish if this could really happen in service matters.
But unfortunately this does not happen in public service jurisprudence.
In Service matter every accused has to be presumed guilty till exonerated.
This is the truth of the life.
Therefore, I reiterate my earlier views for the queriest
"Buy peace if interested in joining govt. "
P. Venu
(Expert) 21 October 2015
There is no rule or principle or even a practice sustain the above suggestion. The guiding principle is provided by Government of India decision No.(1) under Rule 19 of CCS(CCA) Rules:
(1) Scope of second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution :-
The judgment delivered by the Supreme Court on 11.07.85 in the case of Tulsi Ram Patel and others has been the cause of much controversy. The apprehension caused by the judgment is merely due to an inadequate appreciation of the point clarified in this judgment and in the subsequent judgement of the Supreme Court delivered on September 12, 1985 in the case of Satyavir Singh and others (Civil Appeal No. 242 of 1982 and Civil Appeal No. 576 of 1982). It is, therefore, imperative to clarify the issue for the benefit and guidance of all concerned.
2. In the first place it may be understood that the Supreme Court in its judgment has not established any new principle of law. It has only clarified the constitutional provisions, as embodied in Article 311 (2) of the Constitution. In other words, the judgment does not take away the constitutional protection granted to government employees by the said Article, under which no government employee can be dismissed, removed or reduced in rank without an inquiry in which he has been informed of the charges against him and given a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It is only in three exceptional situations listed in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) that the requirement of holding such an inquiry may be dispensed with.
3. Even under these three exceptional circumstances, the judgment does not give unbridled power to the competent authority when it takes action under any of the three clauses in the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or any service rule corresponding to it. The competent authority is expected to exercise its power under this proviso after due caution and considerable application of mind. The principles to be kept in view by the competent authority while taking action under the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or corresponding service rules have been defined by the Supreme Court itself. These are reproduced in the succeeding paragraphs for the information, guidance and compliance of all concerned.
4. When action is taken under clause (a) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution or rule 19 (1) of the CCS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 or any other service rule similar to it, the first pre-requisite is that the disciplinary authority should be aware that a Government servant has been convicted on criminal charge. But this awareness alone will not suffice. Having come to know of the conviction of a Government servant on a criminal charge, the disciplinary authority must consider whether his conduct, which had led to his conviction, was such as warrants the imposition of a penalty and if so, what that penalty should be. For that purpose, it will have to peruse the judgment of the criminal court and consider all the facts and circumstances of the case. In considering the matter, the disciplinary authority will have to take into account the entire conduct of the delinquent employee, the gravity of the misconduct committed by him, the impact which his misconduct is likely to have on the administration and other extenuating circumstances or redeeming features. This however, has to be done by the disciplinary authority by itself. Once the disciplinary authority reaches the conclusion that the government servant’s conduct was blameworthy and punishable, it must decide upon the penalty that should be imposed on the Government servant. (The position has been undergone a change with incorporation of first proviso to Rule 19, which may be kept in view). This too has to be done by the disciplinary authority by itself. The principle, however, to be kept in mind is that the penalty imposed upon the civil servant should not be grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed or one not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. After the competent authority passes the requisite orders as indicated in the preceding paragraph, a Government servant who is aggrieved by it can agitate in appeal, revision or review, as the case may be, that the penalty was too severe or excessive and not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case. If it is his case that he is not the person who was in fact, convicted, he can also agitate this question in appeal, revision or review. If he fails in all the departmental remedies available to him and still wants to pursue the matter, he can seek judicial review. The court (which term will include a Tribunal having the powers of a court) will go into the question whether impugned order is arbitrary or grossly excessive or out of all proportion to the offence committed, or not warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case or the requirements of the particular service to which the government servant belongs.
6. Coming to clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2), there are two conditions precedent which must be satisfied before action under this clause is taken against a government servant. These conditions are :-
(i) There must exist a situation which makes the holding of an inquiry contemplated by Article 311 (2) not reasonably practicable. What is required is that holding of inquiry is not practicable in the opinion of the reasonable man taking a reasonable view of the prevailing situation. It is not possible to enumerate all the cases in which it would not be reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry. Illustrative cases would be :-
(a) Where a civil servant, through or together with his associates, terrorises, threatens or intimidates witnesses who are likely to give evidence against him with fear of reprisal in order to prevent them from doing so; or
(b) where the civil servant by himself or with or through others threatens, intimidates and terrorises the officer who is disciplinary authority or members of his family so that the officer is afraid to hold the inquiry or direct it to be held; or
(c) where an atmosphere of violence or of general indiscipline and insubordination prevails at the time the attempt to hold the inquiry is made.
The disciplinary authority is not expected to dispense with a disciplinary inquiry lightly or arbitrarily or out of ulterior motives or merely in order to avoid the holding of an inquiry or because the Department’s case against the civil servant is weak and is, therefore, bound to fail.
(ii) Another important condition precedent to the application of clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2), or rule 19 (ii) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 or any other similar rule is that the disciplinary authority should record in writing the reason or reasons for its satisfaction that it was not reasonably practicable to hold the inquiry contemplated by Article 311 (2) or corresponding provisions in the service rules. This is a constitutional obligation and, if the reasons are not recorded in writing, the order dispensing with the inquiry and the order of penalty following it would both be void and unconstitutional. It should also be kept in mind that the recording in writing of the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry must precede an order imposing the penalty. Legally speaking, the reasons for dispensing with the inquiry need not find a place in the final order itself, though they should be recorded separately in the relevant file. In spite of this legal position, it would be of advantage to incorporate briefly the reasons which led the disciplinary authority to the conclusion that it was not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry, in the order of penalty. While the reasons so given may be brief, they should not be vague or they should not be just a repetition of the language of the relevant rules.
7. It is true that the Article 311 (3) of the Constitution provides that the decision of the competent authority under clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) shall be final. Consequently, the decision of the competent authority cannot be questioned in appeal, revision or review. This finality given to the decision of the competent authority is, however, not binding on a Court (or Tribunal having the powers of a Court) so far as its power of judicial review is concerned, and the court is competent to strike down the order dispensing with the inquiry as also the order imposing penalty, should such a course of action be considered necessary by the court in the circumstances of the case. All disciplinary authorities should keep this factor in mind while forming the opinion that it is not reasonably practicable to hold an inquiry.
8. Another important guidelines with regard to this clause which needs to be kept in mind is that a civil servant who has been dismissed or removed from service or reduced in rank by applying to his case clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or an analogous service rule can claim in appeal or revision that an inquiry should be held with respect to the charges on which such penalty has been imposed upon him, unless a situation envisaged by the second proviso is prevailing at the hearing of the appeal or revision application. Even in such a case the hearing of the appeal or revision application should be postponed for a reasonable length of time for situation to return to normal.
9. As regards action under clause (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, what is required under this clause is the satisfaction of the President or the Governor, as the case may be, that in the interest of the security of the State, it is not expedient to hold an inquiry as contemplated by Article 311 (2). This satisfaction is for the President or the Governor as a constitutional authority arrived at with the aid and advice of his Council of Ministers. The satisfaction so reached by the President or the Governor is necessarily a subjective satisfaction. The reasons for this satisfaction need not be recorded in the order of dismissal, removal or reduction in rank; nor can it be made public. There is no provision for departmental appeal or other departmental remedy against the satisfaction reached by the President or the Governor. If, however, the inquiry has been dispensed with by the President or the Governor and the order of penalty has been passed by disciplinary authority subordinate thereto, a departmental appeal or revision will lie. In such an appeal or revision, the civil servant can ask for an inquiry to be held into his alleged conduct, unless at the time of the hearing of the appeal or revision a situation envisaged by the second proviso to Article 311 (2) is prevailing. Even in such a situation the hearing of the appeal or revision application should be postponed for a reasonable length of time for the situation to become normal. Ordinarily the satisfaction reached by the President or the Governor, would not be a matter for judicial review. However, if it is alleged that the satisfaction of the President or Governor, as the case may be, had been reached mala fide or was based on wholly extraneous or irrelevant grounds, the matter will become subject to judicial review because, in such a case, there would be no satisfaction, in law, of the President or the Governor at all. The question whether the court may compel the Government to disclose the materials to examine whether the satisfaction was arrived at mala fide or based on extraneous or irrelevant grounds, would depend upon the nature of the documents in question i.e. whether they fall within the class of privileged documents or whether in respect of them privilege has been properly claimed or not.
10. The preceding paragraphs clarify the scope of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) of the Constitution, rule 19 of CSS (CC&A) Rules, 1965 and other service rules similar to it, in the light of the judgments of the Supreme Court delivered on 11.07.1985 and 12.09.1985. It is, therefore, imperative that these clarifications are not lost sight of while invoking the provisions of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or service rules based on them. Particularly, nothing should be done that would create the impression that the action taken is arbitrary or mala fide. So far as clauses (a) and (c) and service rules similar to them are concerned, there are already detailed instructions laying down the procedure for dealing with the cases falling within the purview of the aforesaid clauses and rules similar to them. As regards invoking clause (b) of the second proviso to Article 311 (2) or any similarly worded service rule, absolute care should be exercised and it should always be kept in view that action under it should not appear to be arbitrary or designed to avoid an inquiry which is quite practicable.
[Department of Personnel & Training OM No. 11012/11/85-Estt. Dated the 11th November, 1985].
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 October 2015
Article 311 applies to serving employees and not to aspirant of Govt service.
I know what happens in practice.
During service.
one accused (even in false charges) does not get pension/ promotion/ higher grade / permission to apply elsewhere / permission to proceed on deputation / permission for passport / clearance of probation. TILL HE IS EXONERATED.
This is supported by DOPT instructions which are applied in letter and spirit.
before joining service
One is never appointed as long as any criminal case is pending against him (any allegation whether true or false).
One is also not allowed to join new post if already employed in public sector and alleged in a disciplinary case. (any allegation whether true or false)
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 October 2015
Therefore I have the basis to say that
A person accused of criminal change cannot join in Govt service (even if he is yet to be convicted).
"None can be presumed guilty till convicted". It is golden principle.
But unfortunately in service jurisprudence the concept is 180% opposite. "Every accused has to be treated guilty till exonerated"
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 22 October 2015
Ground reality is far from idealism.
SO the querist,
please go head to buy peace.
P. Venu
(Expert) 22 October 2015
It may be that many of the dealing assistants (that includes Under Secretataries, Deputy Secretaries and Directors) in State and Central Secretariat and key decision making bodies (CVC, UPSC etc included) consider law unto themselves and the decision makers are prone to approve their suggestions without application of mind unless undue influence exerted. But this amounts to an abuse and a malpractice destructive of Rule of Law which forms of the bulwark of Good Governance.
I firmly believe and the this august forum, to which I am minuscule participant based on my experience in public service for three decades, is meant to to contribute to the cause of Rule of Law in its letter and spirit.
As such to suggest that a citizen selected for a public appointment unfortunate to be involved in traffic accident, that too without any element moral turpitude, should 'buy peace', in my considered opinion, amounts reducing Rule of Law to the practice of sorcery and black magic.
It is morality that makes Law possible. Service Jurisprudence in not divorced from the Jurisprudence in its totality. This is more so in our country, where the Service Conditions have been laid down under the provisions of the Constitution.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 22 October 2015
1. The aspirant for post must satisfy eligibility criteria on date of application.........................
2. Government cannot cancel appointment of candidate on the ground that ..................... a criminal case is pending
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
http://indiankanoon.org/doc/116602584/?type=print
In column No.12 of the Attestation form, he has furnished information as under:- a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes
b) Have you ever been prosecuted? No
c) Have you ever been kept under detention? No
d) Have you ever been bound down? No
e) Have you ever been fined by a court of law? No
f) Have you ever been convicted by a court
of law for any offence No
g) Have you ever been debarred from any
Examination or rusticated by any University
or any other educational authority/
institution? No
h) Have you ever been debarred/disqualified
by any Public Service Commission/ Staff
Selection Commission for any of their
Examination/ selection? No
i) Is any case pending against you in any
Court of law at the time of filing up this
Attestation Form? Yes
It is also not disputed that the applicant furnished correct information in column No.12. The relevant sub columns are (a) and (i) : a) Have you ever been arrested? Yes
i) Is any case pending against you
in any Court of law at the time of filling
up this Attestation form? Yes
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.
3. The querist should consult an able counsel ASAP and file all papers so as to build an irrefutable record and as well to be clear of the case.
This thread provides exhaustive discussion on imp. matter that troubles and give zitters to many citizens.
Hope the querist can read between the lines.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 23 October 2015
Mr. Sudhir Kumar is right and has explained the ground realities from his experience, and knowledge.
Mr. P.Venu is right and has explained from his experience and knowledge.
The thread has been properly moderated by Experts.
The querist can pick up the relevant points and prepare well in advance and fetch relief.
The querist should consult his able counsel well in advance and leave nothing to chances.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 October 2015
I will be the happiest person if the ground reality could be the same as visualised by Mr P Venu.
Furthermore, as explained by the queriest, it is not mere traffic case [i.e. relight jump, overloading, without helmet etc]. In this case IPC sections are involved and if FIR is registered then he will never be able to state in attestation form that no criminal case is pending.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 October 2015
In this case if FIR is pending against him then Dealing Asstt/Officers are there just to follow what is written in instructions.
Sudhir Kumar, Advocate
(Expert) 24 October 2015
On the contrary they will be acting as "law unto themselves" if they allow appointment by ignoring DOPT instructions and allow his joining by being amused by arguments like (i) no moral turpitude(ii) only traffic violation case.(iii) not yet convicted
In such case the dealing officials may have to look for another job.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 24 October 2015
If a complaint is registered then the querist must not state in attestation form that no criminal case is pending.
Aaditya Patil
(Querist) 25 October 2015
Thank you very much all for your valuable suggesions. I had bought peace by giving some money to him before 7 days. But today he made complaint in police station. FIR is not been filed yet.
