Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 787 (PAT)

Lt. Col. Nikhil Kumar v. L. M. Vas

2003-07-31

G.P.MATHUR, S.RAJENDRA BABU

body2003
Judgment G.P.Mathur, J. 1. These petitions have been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against Smt. L. M. Vas, Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad. Lt. Col. Nikhil Kumar is son of Maj. Gen. Baldev Kumar and he claims to have executed a power of attorney in favour of his father, who has filed the affidavit in support of the petition. The controversy raised in both the petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we will set out the facts of Contempt Petition No. 353 of 2001. 2. The facts pleaded in the Contempt Petition are as follows. The Ghaziabad Development Authority issued an advertisement in June 1989 for sale of plots in Indrapuram Scheme. It was mentioned in the brochure that the possession of the plots will be given in the year 1991. The petitioner made complete payment of Rs. 5,08,851/- between 29.7.1989 and 3.12.1992 as per the payment schedule stipulated by the Authority, but the possession of the plot was not delivered. The petitioner accordingly filed a compensation application on 13.9.1994 before the MRTP Commission. The MRTP Commission passed an order on 14.5.1997 directing office-cum-residence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sadar. At about 6 P.M. he was intoxicated. He took rifle of another constable and fired twice. Departmental proceeding was initiated and charges were framed with respect to indiscipline, doubtful character, insubordination and acts of unbecoming of police personnel etc. Copy of charge was furnished to the appellant. He filed show-cause. Thereafter, enquiry started. During course of enquiry three witnesses were examined. Those were Vijay Shankar Prasad, Babban Prasad and Ram Kirpal Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted the preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted its report holding the appellant guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed. He also filed memorial before the Director General of Police which was also dismissed. The appellant being aggrieved by those orders filed writ petition as indicated above. The writ petition was also dismissed. The said order has been impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is violation of rule of natural justice as he was not al- lowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The submission appears to be attractive but it has no leg to stand. The writ petition was also dismissed. The said order has been impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is violation of rule of natural justice as he was not al- lowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The submission appears to be attractive but it has no leg to stand. It appears from the record produced by learned counsel for the respondents that Vijay Shankar Prasad and Babban Prasad were examined in presence of the appellant. The appellant also received copy of the depositions. It further appears that Ram Kirpal Singh was examined but there is no endorsement that appellant received copy of the deposition. At this stage it would not be out of place to mention herein that Ram Kirpal Singh is not witness to the incident. He held preliminary enquiry and found the incident true and accordingly referred the matter to the disciplinary authority who on the basis of said report initiated the proceeding. Even if it is accepted that appellant was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine Ram Kirpal Singh, in our opinion, the proceeding would not vitiate because ot the fact that he was not witness to the incident and also two material witnesses have fully supported the charges against the appellant. In the counter-affidavit specific averment was made that there was no violation of rule of natural justice. He was allowed to cross- examine the witnesses but he did not cross-examine the witnesses. The said averment was not denied by the appellant in his rejoinder. More-over, in the departmental proceeding the charges are not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as required in criminal case. The evidence of two witnesses brought on the record is convincing and trustworthy. Therefore, their evidence cannot be brushed aside. Further-more the appellant was in uniform service i.e. police service and the charges which were framed against the appellant were of indiscipline and were proved. In such a situation, such person cannot be allowed to remain in service. 4. Thus on consideration, as discussed above, we find no merit in this appeal. Accordingly, it is dismissed but without cost.