Today, the 20th day of April’ 2018 was fixed for determining and pronouncing the statutory fate of the two pending miscellaneous applications filed during the current proceedings as:
i) Application dated 18.09.2017 filed by the instant complainant U/s 13(4) {inadvertently quoted as 13(3)} of the CP Act, 1986 seeking the summoning of witness Dr Bharat Lal DMO and Record Keeper at the DMO/NR/UMB along with related medical records # 602, X-Ray Report dated 20.02.2018 and G-92 Surrender Order Form (for Arm/ Ammunition) etc.
ii) Application dated 23.10.2017 filed by the opposite party RPSF authorities seeking dismissal of the present complaint on account of its non-maintainability alleging the same to be false, frivolous and vexatious besides the complainant not-being the statutory consumer to the titled array of the opposite parties who claim to be the one sovereign armed-forces employer.
Back-Drop of the reported-dispute:
It shall be in the all common interest of legal expediency to first have a bird’ eye-view into the back-drop before peeping further into the herein raised dispute hued as one consumer grievance and seeking its statutory resolve:
1. The herein arrayed opposite parties have been the competent authorities (not addressed by correct title- designations) of the sovereign Armed Security Force, GOI, New Delhi; and the complainant joined the OP Force in the year 1999 as Constable but was subsequently removed from the Service on 20.08.2007 vide an orderly conduct of Disciplinary Inquiry proceedings that was duly confirmed in departmental Appeal as well as in the departmental Revision. However, the complainant had also availed himself of the other legal remedies of CWP (Civil Writ Petition) and LPA (Letters Patent Appeal) before the P & H, High Court as well as SLP (Special Leave Petition) before the Supreme Court but only to get the penalty of Removal, upheld/ finally confirmed.
2. Lastly, the complainant filed the present complaint seeking directions to the titled OP RPSF authorities to immediately release (to him) GPF, Provident Funds, Gratuity, medical benefits, arrears of 6th Pay Commission along with the disability pension and other benefits under the RPF Act with accrued interest @ 18% PA besides Rs 5.0 Lac as compensation and Rs 50,000/- as cost of litigation.
3. The OP RPSF authorities appeared through the counsel to raise their prime objection that the complainant has never been its consumer as statutorily defined under the CP Act, 1986 and pleaded for dismissal of the present complaint on this count alone. The OP Force have systematically narrated the entire course of undisciplined events conducted by the present complainant leading to his ‘Removal from Service’ vide the prescribed disciplinary proceedings and final adjudication up to the final apex court level duly confirming the awarded penalty.
4. We have intently heard the learned counsels for both the sides in the back drop of the legally applicable merit of the supporting evidence/ document(s) as produced by the litigating parties in order to statutorily resolve the accrued inter-se dispute (in accordance with the provisions of the Consumer Protection Act’ 1986) prompting into the one present complaint.
5. We observe that the present complaint was allowed to be admitted here in the light of the legal rulings as held out by i) the NCDRC, New Delhi in RP # 1713 of 2007 titled Amadalavalasa Co-op Sugars Ltd; vs. Kenguva Mohana Rao & Ors. & ii) the Kerala State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Thiruvananthapuram in Appeal # 30 of 2009 titled PF Commissioner vs. Baby Daniel & Another; that do impart adjudicatory jurisdiction to the consumer forum(s) to settle the consumer-natured disputes pertaining to the terminal benefits of the retiring employees due from their past employers. However, the said jurisdiction gets restricted only to the consumer related grievances pertaining to deficiency in service/unfair trade practice/ unscrupulous exploitation etc and not to the employer/ employee situations and/or disciplinary proceedings etc as in the present complaint prompting out of penalty awarded to the complainant by way of Removal from Service and its confirmation throughout up to the apex court.
6. We further find that the present complaint is even pre- mature vide the consumer angled vision since the complainant has not yet applied (till this time) for release of his accrued terminal-benefits with the OP RPSF authorities who although express its affirmation (vide the written statement) to consider release of all the complainant’s eligible benefits, if any, as per the existing rules/ regulations.
Presently, we proceed further to adjudicate first the Application dated 18.09.2017 filed by the present complainant seeking summoning of the named witnesses and records and find that in the light of the above backdrop especially that U/sl. # 6 terming therein contained consumer aspect as pre-mature, the instant application turns redundant and un-necessary rendering it liable to dismissal and thus we ORDER accordingly; all the more so in the light of the OP reply accompanied by the Hon'ble P & H, High Court orders dated 31.07.2013 over-ruling therein the evidence of the summoned witnesses/records as futile and adverse to the legal interests of the petitioner complainant:
“The out patient record relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioner speaks against the petitioner. The Doctors have recorded “alleged dislocation ( R) shoulder”. Dr. Bharat Lal in the discharge certificate dated 23.3.2007 has recorded as follows:
“Sub: Regarding Sh.Harjinder Singh/Constable/RPF/UMB
Ref. Letter No.RPF/D&AR02/SRE/07 dt.20.3.07 of SI/RPF
Post/SRE
In reference to the above quoted letter it is to inform you that the above named was in my sick list w.e.f. 03.03.07 as a case of dislocation shoulder (allegedly).
He has been discharged from my sick list w.e.f. 23.03.07 on account of giving false declaration to the administration while reporting sick to the undersigned that no D&AR action is going on against him.
This is for you kind information and necessary action.
Sd/-
(Dr.Bharat Lal)
Sr.DMO/UMB
Enclosure Discharge Certificate No.465372 dat.23.03.07.”
The story set up by the petitioner is therefore based on a false declaration to the Administration while reporting sick to Dr.Bharat Lal. If bed rest was advised for two weeks that by itself is not a mitigating circumstances to lower the quantum of punishment inflicted.
No ground is made out warranting interference in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is devoid of merit and is consequently dismissed”.
31.07.2013 (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA)
rajeev JUDGE
Next, comes the second Application dated 23.10.2017 filed by the opposite parties RPSF seeking dismissal of the present complaint on the grounds of devoid of the necessarily requisite statutory consumer-relationship and with no solid rebuttal reply forthcoming from the complainant side and the above narration also indicating to the frivolousness and redundancy of the same; all these add up to incline to allow the present application and thus finally we ORDER for dismissal of the present complaint, too.
Copy of the order be communicated to the parties free of charges. After compliance, file be consigned to record.
(Naveen Puri)
President.
ANNOUNCED: (Jagdeep Kaur)
APRIL 20, 2018. Member
*YP*
