BABARBHAI JAVERBHAI v. DISTRIC SUPRINTENDENT OF POLICE
2001-07-02
KUNDAN SINGH
body2001
DigiLaw.ai
KUNDAN SINGH, J. ( 1 ) THIS petition has been filed for quashing and setting aside the order dated 31st August, 1988 passed by the respondent no. 1 D. S. P. dismissing the petitioner from service and the order dated 12th January, 1990 passed by the respondent no. 1 Deputy Inspector General of Police reducing the punishment from dismissal to that of compulsory retirement of the petitioner. ( 2 ) THE petitioner was serving as a police head constable in the police force of Gujarat State. At the relevant time, he was working as a writer head constable in Petlad (Rural) police station. A charge-sheet dated 11. 9. 97 was issued to the petitioner which reads as under:"you unarmed Head constable Babarbhai Zaverbhai, Batch no. 255, Petlad (rural) at present at Boarsad police station have committed serious miscondcut on duty to the effect that :when you were discharging your duties as Writer Head constable in Petlad Rural post station, you were collecting Rs. 10. 00 per bill at the time of payment for preparing the bills of police persons of Petlad Rural. FOR the bills regarding the payment of leave till the month of November, 1986, you have demanded Rs. 40. 00 per employee and thus have indulged in corrupt activities. IN this connection, on 6. 2. 1987, a Darbar (meeting) of the Petlad town and Petlad Rural Police station was organised and though you were to do the work of preparing the bills of various police persons and though it was your duty to prepare the same, you have demanded money from the concerned police persons and collected it and thus you have committed serious/grave misconduct in your duties. "the charge-sheet issued by the respondent no. 1 to the petitioner was received by the petitioner on 15th September, 1989. After receiving the charge-sheet, the petitioner made an application dated 23rd September, 1989 for furnishing him copies of the documents and statements of the witnesses which were recorded in the preliminary inquiry and the report of the preliminary inquiry which had not been supplied to the petitioner to give his defence reply within a period mentioned in the charge-sheet. Hence, he requested for the copies of all the documents. It is stated that the department did not respond to it.
Hence, he requested for the copies of all the documents. It is stated that the department did not respond to it. He also repeated his request for the documents, statements of the witnesses and copies of preliminary report by the letter dated 27th October, 1987. The Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as an inquiry officer by a letter dated 8th February, 1988. On the first date of hearing i. e. 12th February, 1988, the petitioner made an oral request for copies of the documents. On 24th February, 1988, the petitioner made a written application to the inquiry officer for the copies of certain documents. It is also stated that the petitioner is entitled to the copies of all the statements recorded by the Police Inspector, Petlad during the preliminary inquiry and the policeman who had given the statement had not been referred as a witness in the charge-sheet. Hence, he was entitled to cross-examine the Police Inspector, Petlad. Some copies and statements have been submitted before the inquiry officer, but original had not been produced. Hence, the petitioner would not be able effectively to cross-examine the witnesses. It is also stated that Hasubhai Jerambhai, Chandrakant Shivdas and Kantibhai Mafatbhai who were working in the office of the petitioner and their statements have been recorded, but the same have not been furnished to the petitioner. The inquiry officer by his letter dated 26th February, 1988 informed the petitioner that the Police Inspector, Petlad who made a preliminary inquiry had not been referred in the statements of the witnesses mentioned in the charge-sheet and the repliminary report is not the evidence to be produced before the inquiry officer. The original statements to be produced at the time of inquiry and the writer head constable will remain present at the time of inquiry. The petitioner was furnished with the copies of the statements of eight policemen which were recorded at the time of preliminary inquiry i. e. Jiwansing Gokulbhai, Dahyabhai Khanabhai, Somabhai Mathurbhai, Bhaijibhai Pochabhai, Alepkhan Jhangirbhai, Harivadan Manilal, Rasiklal Dahyabhai, G. S. Yadav. The Presiding Officer recorded the statements of Juvansing Gokulbhai, Bhaijibhai, Alephkhan Jhangirbhai, Harivadan Manilal, Rasikbhai Dahyabhai and Ramjibhai Khanabhai. The petitioner made an application on 9th August, 1988 that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Police Inspector S. G. Brahmbhatt and he made a report.
The Presiding Officer recorded the statements of Juvansing Gokulbhai, Bhaijibhai, Alephkhan Jhangirbhai, Harivadan Manilal, Rasikbhai Dahyabhai and Ramjibhai Khanabhai. The petitioner made an application on 9th August, 1988 that the preliminary inquiry was conducted by the Police Inspector S. G. Brahmbhatt and he made a report. A copy of that report was not given to him and Shri Brahmbhatt has not been examined by the department and hence he requested to examine Shri Brahmbhatt as a defence witness. But Brahmbhatt deliberately remained absent and he was not examined at all. Under the circular dated 17. 10. 79, if any officer is called as a witness in departmental proceedings, he is bound to remain present and absence of Brahmbhatt has prejudiced the defence case. The witnesses who were examined during the inquiry were inimical and having grudge against him. Hence, their evidence is not reliable at all and no case is made out against the petitioner. The witnesses Alephkhan, Somabhai, Hasubhai and Chandrakantbhai have given statements in favour of the petitioner. The inquiry officer, without applying his mind to the various contentions and submissions of the petitioner gave his report dated 4th October, 1988 holding that the charges has been proved against the petitioner and the petitioner was guilty of the alleged miscondcut. The petitioner was given a show cause notice date 25th Novemb er, 1988 as to why the petitioner should not be dismissed from service. The petitioner gave a reply dated 23rd December, 1988 stating that the charges against him were not proved and he was not given reasonable opportunity to defend and there was no reliable evidence for coming to the conclusion that the charges framed against him were proved. The charge-sheet was vague and the documents necessary for the defence were not furnished to him. He has not committed any misconduct in the eye of law. Without considering the defence of the petitioner, the inquiry report dismissing the petitioner from service was illegal and not sustainable in the eye of law. Hence, he preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2 Deputy Inspector General of Police on 16. 9. 89. The respondent no. 2 by his order dated 12th January, 1990 held tht the order of dismissal dated 31st August, 1988 passed by the respondent no.
Hence, he preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 2 Deputy Inspector General of Police on 16. 9. 89. The respondent no. 2 by his order dated 12th January, 1990 held tht the order of dismissal dated 31st August, 1988 passed by the respondent no. 1 was not justified and therefore, quashed and set aside the same but reduced the penalty and instead of dismissal, ordered for the compulsory retirement of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner has filed this petition on the ground that the charges levelled against him dated 11th September, 1987 were vague and the petitioner was not given an opportunity to defend him. Therefore, the inquiry is illegal and without jurisdiction. The petitioner requested for the copies of the documents and more particularly the report of preliminary inquiry which was not furnished to him. Mr. Brahmbhatt who conducted the preliminary inquiry was not examined as a witness by the department and he deliberately did not appear to give his evidence. That was against the order of Inspector General of Police of 1979. The petitioners defence was prejudiced and no reasonable opportunity was given to the petitioner. Hence, the inquiry conducted in violation of principles of natural justice is illegal and without jurisdiction. It is also stated that there were 45 policemen rural area and Shri Brahmbhatt had examined only seven policemen. On the basis of the preliminary inquiry, the charge-sheet was filed against the petitioner. Four witnesses, namely Juvansing, Bhaijibhai and Harivadanbhai had grudge against him and due to enmity, they have deposed against him and their cross-examination shows that they had given false evidence implicating the petitioner on account of their differences. The orders passed by the respondents are arbitrary, without any reason for disproving the said witnesses and are wrong in law and without jurisdiction. ( 3 ) THE respondents have not filed any affidavit-in-reply to this petition. ( 4 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are of two fold. Firstly, the petitioner had made an application for the copies of the documents, preliminary inquiry report and other documents in support of the inquiry. But the copies of such documents had not been supplied to him.
( 4 ) THE contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner are of two fold. Firstly, the petitioner had made an application for the copies of the documents, preliminary inquiry report and other documents in support of the inquiry. But the copies of such documents had not been supplied to him. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has invited the attention of the court to paras 3, 4, 5 and 6 of the petition wherein it is stated that after receipt of the charge-sheet, the petitioner made an application dated 23rd September, 1987 for copies whereby the petitioner required the copies of the documents, the statements of witnesses and papers of initial preliminary inquiry. It is stated that the department has not cared to reply or supply copies of the documents required by the petitioner. Thereafter, the inquiry officer was appointed by a letter dated 8th February, 1988 and on the first day of hearing on 12th February, 1988, the petitioner made an oral request for copies of the documents stated above. The petitioner also made a written application to the inquiry officer on 24th February, 1988 for the copies of the documents mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 5 in his application dated 24th February 1988 and required the inspection of the original documents. But the petitioner was provided neither inspection, preliminary report nor copies of the documents as requested by him. Therefore, the petitioners defence was prejudiced and the petitioner could not be able to file his written statement after perusing the relevant papers. Thus, the inquiry is vitiated due to non-supply of documents and failure to give an opportunity of inspection of the original documents. ( 5 ) I have carefully considered this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. The petitioner required copies of three types of documents i. e. the documents mentioned in the charge-sheet at serial nos. 2 to 11, the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary inquiry alongwith preliminary inquiry report. The petitioner had grude against four witnesses, namely Juvansing, Dahyabhai, Harivadan and Rasikbhai as he had made certain reports against their conduct and they were penalised and those papers have been mentioned in the application dated 24th February, 1988 at serial nos. 1 to 5. ( 6 ) SO far as demand of copies of the documents at serial nos.
The petitioner had grude against four witnesses, namely Juvansing, Dahyabhai, Harivadan and Rasikbhai as he had made certain reports against their conduct and they were penalised and those papers have been mentioned in the application dated 24th February, 1988 at serial nos. 1 to 5. ( 6 ) SO far as demand of copies of the documents at serial nos. 2 to 11 in the charge-sheet made by the petitioner is concerned, those documents show that at the relevant time, the petitioner was working as a head constable (writer accountant) and certain bills of July, September, October and November, 1996 of leave and allowances of Bhaijibhai, Harivadan, Rasikbhai, Somabhai, Dahyabhai and Juvansing and those report only show that the petitioner was working and thebills of dearness allowances and leave were presented and dealt with by the petitioner. The petitioner has not denied anywhere that the petitioner was not working as a head constable at the relevant time and those bills were not dealt with by the petitioner. Hence, they are only in formal nature to show that at the relevant time the petitioner was working as a head constable, writer cum accountant and he dealt with the bills stated above. As such, even if no document has been provided to the petitioner, the petitioners defence cannot be said to have been prejudiced by non-supply of these documents. However, it is mentioned in para-5 of the petition itself that the Presiding Officer, on the first day of hearing dated 12. 12. 1988 put certain questions to the petitioner and the petitioner stated that he has received complete copies of Bhattha report (dearness allowance) report the petitioner has made an endorsement on the same that he has received incomplete copies of Bhattha report. This goes to show that the petitioner received copies due to inadvertence on the part of the office of the respondents, certain copies were sent to the petitioner alongwith charge-sheet which were incomplete or part of those documents were not supplied to him. As such, the defence is not prejudiced due to non-supply of these documents. More so, in the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has made the following observations :"in the departmental inquiry, proceedings against the delinquent, the preliminary inquiry was done and copies of the papers as stated in the charge-sheet and witnesses and documents have been supplied to the delinquent.
As such, the defence is not prejudiced due to non-supply of these documents. More so, in the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has made the following observations :"in the departmental inquiry, proceedings against the delinquent, the preliminary inquiry was done and copies of the papers as stated in the charge-sheet and witnesses and documents have been supplied to the delinquent. "this clearly shows that the copies as stated by the learned counsel in respect of the documents mentioned from serial nos. 2 to 11 in the charge-sheet have already been supplied. Thus, there is no question that the petitioner has not been supplied the documents stated above and there is no violation of principles of natural justice. ( 7 ) SO far as the second type of documents are concerned, they are in respect of preliminary inquiry report and the statements made by the witnesses during the preliminary inquiry. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that copies of the statements of writer head Petlad (rural) police station who was supposed to produce the documents mentioned at serial nos. 1 to 10 have not been supplied to him. The statement of head constable of Petlad (Rural) police stastion was to prove the fact that the petitioner was working at the relevant time as a writer head constable (accountant) and he dealt with leave bills and dearness allowance bills and those original documents have to be produced by the head constable. It appears that no statement was recorded and the petitioner was required to be supplied with the copies of the statements of that constable. ( 8 ) IN this behalf, it is also submitted that the petitioner has not received copies of the preliminary inquiry report. The preliminary inquiry report consists of statements of witnesses and conclusion that a prima facie case is made out for taking legal action or to initiate regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The departmental inquiry officer has not relied upon the report of the preliminary inquiry though the statements made by the witnesses have been relied and the copies of those statements of the witnesses have already been supplied to the petitioner. Nowhere, it is stated in the inquiry report that the inquiry officer has relied on the conclusion arrived at by Shri G. S. Yadav, PSI who made the preliminary inquiry.
Nowhere, it is stated in the inquiry report that the inquiry officer has relied on the conclusion arrived at by Shri G. S. Yadav, PSI who made the preliminary inquiry. Thus, in absence of the supply of the conclusion of the preliminary inquiry conducted by PSI Shri G. S. Yadav, it has not prejudiced the defence of the petitioner at all. Moreover, that conclusion of G. S. Yadav in the preliminary report has not been relied at all in the inquiry report. ( 9 ) SO far as the demand of the documents and inspection of the original documents mentioned in the application dated 24. 2. 88 is concerned, the petitioner has required the original record of the following articles. (1) Punishment which has been accorded to police constable Juvansing, Harivadan, Dahyabhai and Rasikbhai and relevant entries made in their service books. (2) At the time of inspection during the month of February 1986, I, Hasubhai and Premjibhai had demanded for transfer and Hasubhai was transferred and an entry was made in the sheet that he will be transferred at the time of general transfers. (3) Juvansing had remained absent in February, 1986. Therefore, a notice was given under section 145 of the Bombay Police Act and when the petitioner had reported in May, 1986, the disposal in this regard and the information of that incident may be supplied. (4) Copy of the application made in vigilance against police constable Juvansingh and Harivadan. Copy of the direct show cause notice on this issue given to PSI Yadav and the reply, if any, given by him in this connection. These documents are not part of the preliminary inquiry or charge-sheet or the domestic inquiry against the petitioner. The petitioner has no right at all to summon and require the documents or inspection of any document which is not connected with the inquiry against him. However, the appellate authority had summoned those documents and perused the documents required by the petitioner. In that connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through L. Rs.
In that connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. ( 10 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Mohd. Sharif (dead) through L. Rs. reported in AIR 1982, SC, 937 in which it is observed as under:"only two aspects need be mentioned in this connection. Admittedly, in the charge-sheet that was framed and served upon the plaintiff no particulars with regard to the date and time of his alleged misconduct of having entered Government Forest situated in P. C. Thatia District Farrukhabad and hunting a bull in that forest and thereby having injured the feeling of one community by taking advantage of his service and rank, were not mentioned. Not only were these particulars with regard to the date and time of the incident not given but even the location of the incident in the vast forest was not indicated with sufficient particularity. In the absence of these plaintiff was obviously prejudiced in the matter of his defence at the inquiry. Secondly, it was not disputed before us that a preliminary inquiry had preceded the disciplinary inquiry and during the preliminary inquiry statements of witensses were recorded but copies of these statements were not furnished to him at the time of the disciplinary inquiry. Even the request of the plaintiff to inspect the file pertaining to preliminary inquiry was also rejected. In the face of these facts which are not disputed it seems to us very clear that both the first appeal court and the High Court were right in coming to the conclusion that the plaintiff was denied reasonable opportunity to defend himself at thedisciplinary, it cannot be gainsaid that in the absence of necessary particulars and statements of witensses he was prejudiced in the matter of his defence. Having regard to the aforesaid admitted position it is difficult to accept the contention urged by the counsel for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court should be accepted by us. We are satisfied that the dismissal order has been rightly held to be illegal, void and inoperative.
Having regard to the aforesaid admitted position it is difficult to accept the contention urged by the counsel for the appellant that the view taken by the trial court should be accepted by us. We are satisfied that the dismissal order has been rightly held to be illegal, void and inoperative. Since the plaintiff has died during the pendency of the proceedings the only relief that would be available to the legal heirs of the deceased is the payment of arrears of salary and other emoluments payable to the deceased. "he also relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kashinath Dikshita vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 1986 SC, 2118 in which the Supreme Court has made the following observations. "taking an overall view of the matter, we have no doubt in our mind that the appellant has been denied a reasonable opportunity of exonerating himself. We do not consider it necessary to quote extensively from the authorities cited on behalf of the parties, beyond making passing reference to some of the citations, for, whether or not there has been a denial to afford a reasonable opportunity in the backdrop of this case must substantially depend upon the facts pertaining to this matter. "the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the following observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Trilok Nath vs. Union of India and others reported in 1967 SCR (SC), 759. "held that had the copies of the documents been furnished to the appellant he might, after perusing them, will have exercised his right under the rule and asked for an oral inquiry to be held. Therefore, in our view the failure of the inquiry officer to furnish the appellant with copies of the documents such as the first information report and the statements recorded at the Shidipura house and during the investigation must be held to have caused prejudice to the appellant in making his defence at the inquiry. The inquiry held must, in these circumstances, be regarded as one in violation not only of Article 55 but also of Article 311 (2 ). Accordingly, we quash the order of removal of the appellant from service passed by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi.
The inquiry held must, in these circumstances, be regarded as one in violation not only of Article 55 but also of Article 311 (2 ). Accordingly, we quash the order of removal of the appellant from service passed by the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. "the learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the decision of this court in the case of Anantrai L. Vadnagra vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1999 (3) GCD, 1718 wherein it has been held as under:"it is, therefore, clear that the petitioner had been denied important documents asked for by him, which were relevant and germane to the defence and on that ground he has suffered a prejudice so as to defend himself in the inquiry and it has resulted into the denial of reasonable opportunity and violation of principles of natural justice and the respondents have failed even to take notice and deal with his grievance, much less to talk about any justification for the same. The inquiry proceedings held against the petitioner, therefore, stand vitiated and the consequential order of punishment passed on that basis on 2. 5. 1994 and conveyed to the petitioner on 9. 5. 1994 cannot be sustained in the eye of law. "the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this court in the case of Madhusudan Dharshibhai Tank vs. M. Anwar reported in 2000 (3) GLR, 2403 in which it has been held that once the respondent has given the notice in writing to the petitioner for initiating domestic inquiry no reason appears to hold oral inquiry does not appear to be probable. It has been further held that the inquiry conducted against the petitioner was malafide and against the principles of natural justice and hence the impugned order was liable to be quashed and set aside. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the decision of this Court in the case of Ramanlal Dalsukhbhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat and others reported in 1992 (1) GLH (UJ), 12 in which this Court has observed as follows:"it is settled law that non-furnishing of the report to the delinquent is violative of the principles of natural justice, rendering the impugned dismissal order invalid. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report and the same was supplied to the respondent no.
It is not in dispute that the petitioner was not supplied the copy of the inquiry report and the same was supplied to the respondent no. 2 on the basis of which the impugned order of dismissal came to be passed. In quashi-judicial proceeding, non-supply of adverse materials to the affected person, but supply thereof to the authority taking decision against him on that basis does not constitute violation of rules of natural justice. "he further relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Committee of Managerment, Kisan Degree college vs. Shambhu Saran Pandey and others reported in 1995 (1) SCC, 404 wherein the respondent who was given a charge-sheet at the earliest sought for inspection of the documents mentioned therein and submitted his reply to the charge-sheet. The enquiry officer replied that since the respondent had already given the reply to the charge-sheet itemwise, he was at liberty to inspect the documents at the time of final arguments. As a result of the inquiry, the respondent was dismissed from service. It was held therein that postponement of the opportunity to inspect the documents to the time of final hearing was obviously an erroneous procedure. In the first instance, the delinquent should be given the opportunity for inspection and thereafter the inquiry should be conducted and then the delinquent should be heard at the time of conclusion of the enquiry. In this case that procedure was not adopted. Therefore, the procedure in conducting the enquiry adopted was clearly in violation of the principles of natural justice. Hence, the order of dismissal was liable to be set aside. However, it would be open to the appellant-employer to conduct an inquiry afresh after supplying the documents and to give an opportunity to the respondent to inspect the documents and then take appropriate action according to law. The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishasmpayan reported in AIR 1961, SC, 1623 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:". .
The learned counsel for the petitioner also relied on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of State of MP vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishasmpayan reported in AIR 1961, SC, 1623 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:". . RULES of natural justice require that a party should have the opportunity of adducing all relevant evidence on which he relies, that the evidence of the opponent should be taken in his presence, and that he should be given the opportunity of cross-examining the witnesses examined by that party and that no materials should be relied on against him without his being given an opportunity of explaining them. The right to cross-examine the witnesses who give evidence against him is a very valuable right, and if it appears that effective exercise of this right has been prevented by the enquiry officer by not giving to the offricer relevant documents to which he is entitled, that, inevitably would be that the enquiry had not been held in accordance with rules of natural justice. " ( 11 ) I have gone through the ratio laid down in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court as well as of this Court. In the said cases, it is not laid down that the petitioner is entitled for the copies of the documents which do not form the part of the preliminary inquiry or the charge-sheet. If the documents which are not forming part of the preliminary inquiry or charge-sheet, the petitioner cannot claim that he required the copies of the documents and he had been denied of right of defence and that is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The petitioner required the copies of the documents which are not forming the part of the preliminary inquiry or the charge-sheet. But the petitioner was making some allegations against four witnesses that they have a grudge against him and due to that grudge and enmity, they have made false complaints and given their statements against the petitioner. In fact, the inquiry officer has not supplied copies of those documents, but those documents were summoned by the appellate authority and he had perused the same.
In fact, the inquiry officer has not supplied copies of those documents, but those documents were summoned by the appellate authority and he had perused the same. Even if it is assumed that four persons had some grudge against the petitioner and there is no law that the evidence of the persons having grudge, cannlot be accepted at all against the delinquent person against whom the evidence has been given. ( 12 ) THE inquiry officer has fully considered and come to the conclusion that the petitioner had made a demand of money for passing bills of the witnesses. In that respect, the matter was reported to the Inspector within three days. Thereafter, it was reported within 10 days to the District Superintendent of Police and he heard the complainants. He directed the preliminary inquiry to be conducted and in that regard, preliminary inquiry was conducted and the witnesses were examined. The statements of witnesses were recorded and the statements of those witnesses recorded in the preliminary inquiry were supplied to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet. Therefore, the inquiry officer, after having come to the conclusion that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and recommended for the dismissal. The disciplinary authority therefore, passed the order of dismissal. On an appeal having been filed by the petitioner, the appellate authority has reduced the punishment by compulsory retirement in place of dismissal from service. ( 13 ) THE second ground of the learned counsel for the petitioner challenging the orders of the respondents is that the charge is vague and so the proceedings will be vitiated automatically. In this respect, he referred the charge from the charge-sheet which reads as under:"you unarmed Head constable Babarbhai Zaverbhai, Batch no. 255, Petlad Rural at present at Borsad Police station, have committed serious miscondcut on duty to the effect that:when you were discharging your duties as Writer head constable in the Petlad Rural police station, you were collecting Rs. 10. 00 per bill at the time of payment for preparing the bills of police persons of Petlad Rural. FOR the bills regarding the payment of leave till the month of November, 1986, you have demanded Rs. 40. 00 per employee and thus have indulged in corrupt activities. IN this connection, on 6. 2.
10. 00 per bill at the time of payment for preparing the bills of police persons of Petlad Rural. FOR the bills regarding the payment of leave till the month of November, 1986, you have demanded Rs. 40. 00 per employee and thus have indulged in corrupt activities. IN this connection, on 6. 2. 1987 a Darbar (meeting) of the Petlad Town and Petlad Rural Police station was organised and though you were to do the work of preparing the bills of various police persons and though it was your duty to prepare the same, you have demanded money from the concerned police persons and collected it and thus you have committed serious/grave misconduct in your duties. "he also referred that the charge-sheet framed against the petiioner that for the bills paid for leave till November, 1986, he had demanded Rs. 40. 00 from each employee and therefore, there was no need of mentioning the name of each employee. In issue no. 9, the fact has been stated that different amount of money has been paid and the office and residence of the District Superintendent of police and CPI is also there. They have not been informed. Demand of money was made only from four employees. Thus, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there is inconsistency and vagueness in the charges. The petitioner had made a demand of money only from 4 employees or each of the employees as stated in the charge-sheet. In this connection, he relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Sawai Singh vs. State of Rajasthan reported in 1986 (2) SLR, 47 in which the Supreme Court has made the following observations. "it has been observed by this Court in Surath Chandra Chakravarty vs. State of West Bengal (1971) 3 SCR,1 that charges involving consequences of termination of service must be specific, though a departmental enquiry is not like a criminal trial as was noted by this Court in the case of State of Andhra Pradesh vs. S. Sree Rama Rao, (1964) 3 SCR 25 and as such there is no such rule that an offence is not established unless it is proved beyond doubt.
But a departmental enquiry entailing consequences like loss of job which now-adays means loss of livelihood, there must be fair play in action, in respect of an order involving adverse or penal consequences against an employee, there must be investigation to the charges consistent with the requirement of the situation in accordance with the principles of natural justice in so far as these are applicable in a particular situation. 18. The application of those principles of natural justice must always be in conformity with the scheme of the Act and the subject matter of the case. It is not possible to lay down any rigid rules as to which principles of natural justice is to be applied. There is no such thing as technical justice. The requirements of natural justice depend upon the facts and circumstances of the case, the nature of enquiry, the rules under which the Tribunal is acting, the subject matter to be dealt with and so on. Concept of fair play in action which is the basis of natural justice must depend upon the particulars lies between the parties See K. L. Tripathi vs. State Bank of India. (1984) 1 SCC 43 . Rules and practices are constantly developing to ensure fairness in the making of decisions which affect people in their daily lives and livelihood. Without such fairness democratic governments cannot exist. Beyond all rules and procedures that is the sine qua non. " ( 14 ) I have considered this argument. Even if it is assumed for the sake of argument that there is some inconsistency regarding the allegations made in the charge-sheet against the petitioner as it is not mentioned in the charge-sheet as to from whom the petitioner had demanded the money and it appeared to the inquiry officer that the demand was made only from four employees, but it is certain that the petitioner had made demand of money from four employees of the department for passing the bills, either they related to leave or dearness allowance and some of the employees had also given lesser amount and that has been proved during the inquiry. Even if there is some inconsistency, this court will not interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in awarding the punishment to the petitioner.
Even if there is some inconsistency, this court will not interfere with the findings recorded by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority in awarding the punishment to the petitioner. Accordingly, I do not find any substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. ( 15 ) THIS court cannot re-appreciate the evidence even if it is inconsistent to some extent or the evidence given by the persons who have some grudge against the petitioner. This court can only examine the procedure of inquiry as to whether the inquiry has been conducted in accordance with principles of natural justice or as per the rules provided therefor. ( 16 ) IN the facts and circumstances, I do not find any irregularity or violation of principles of natural justice having been committed by the inquiry officer or by the appellate authority. Hence, this petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. .