Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 814 (DEL)

LAL SINGH v. UOI

2007-04-20

S.N.AGGARWAL, T.S.THAKUR

body2007
T. S. THAKUR, J. ( 1 ) IN this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner assails an order dated 30th September, 2005 compulsorily retiring him from service as a measure of punishment on proof of misconduct alleged against him. An appellate order dated 30th May, 2006 dismissing the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been assailed with a prayer for reinstatement of the petitioner in service ( 2 ) THE petitioner was working as Inspector General (Ministerial) in the crpf Group Centre at Jharonda Kalan, New Delhi during the relevant period. A complaint filed by one Karamvir, S/o Ram Kishan, R/o Village Salodha, District jhajjar (Haryana) which incidentally happens to be the petitioner's native village also was received in the office of the Additional DIGP, Group Centre alleging that the petitioner had taken Rs. 50,000/- as bribe from Sh. Hari prasad, the brother of the complainant for getting him recruited in the CRPF. Sh. Hari Prasad having passed away in a road accident, a demand for return of the money was allegedly made to the petitioner which was declined by him. A departmental inquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the above allegation in which the following charge was framed against him : "that Force No. 711510947 Inspector (Min) Lal Singh while posted in Group centre, CRPF, New Delhi from 22/10/2002 to 03/09/2004 had committed an act of grave misconduct and indiscipline, in his capacity as a member of the Force, under Rule 11 (1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he had taken bribe from Shri Ram kishan S/o Shri Sawal Ram, R/o Village : Salodha, Distt : Jhajjar (Haryana) for recruitment of his Hari Prasad. " ( 3 ) THE Inquiry Officer nominated for holding an inquiry came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the petitioner stood proved. A copy of the inquiry report was then furnished to the petitioner to enable him to file a written representation against the same. The petitioner in response submitted his reply culminating in the passing of an order dated 30th September, 2005 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF imposing upon the petitioner a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The petitioner in response submitted his reply culminating in the passing of an order dated 30th September, 2005 by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF imposing upon the petitioner a major penalty of compulsory retirement from service. The said order was then assailed by the petitioner in an appeal preferred before the Inspector General of Police, Northern Sector , CRPF, New Delhi who rejected the same by an order dated 31st August, 2006. Aggrieved the petitioner has filed the present writ petition challenging the aforementioned two orders as already noticed earlier. ( 4 ) A two-fold submission was made before us on behalf of the petitioner by the learned counsel appearing for him. Firstly it was argued that the inquiry officer had not afforded to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses examined in support of the charge. It was urged that the petitioner had made an application on 3rd February, 2005 suggesting to the inquiry Officer that only one witness per day should be examined to enable the petitioner to effectively cross-examine him. That request did not find favour with the Inquiry Officer who had examined about ten witnesses between 10th to 14th February, 2005 thereby denying to the petitioner a reasonable opportunity to defend himself. It was argued that since the witnesses had not turned up to appear before the Inquiry Officer, their statements were recorded by the Inquiry officer in their village located around 170 Kms. from the place where the inquiry Officer was otherwise located. This was, according to the petitioner, an additional reason for miscarriage of justice in the present case. ( 5 ) SECONDLY, it was argued that the finding recorded by the Inquiry officer holding the charge to be proved was perverse. There was, according to the learned counsel, no evidence to support the charge that the petitioner had received any amount from the brother of the complainant to get him employed in the CRPF. The order of punishment passed on such a perverse report was, therefore, unsustainable. ( 6 ) MS. Rekha Palli, counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had been afforded the fullest opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses appearing against him. The order of punishment passed on such a perverse report was, therefore, unsustainable. ( 6 ) MS. Rekha Palli, counsel appearing for the respondents, on the other hand, argued that the petitioner had been afforded the fullest opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses appearing against him. She drew our attention to the inquiry proceedings in support of her submission that the witnesses had been fully cross-examined and that the grievance regarding the number of witnesses being examined each day was also untenable having regard to the fact that the petitioner had himself consented to examination of two witnesses per day as was evident from the minutes of the proceedings recorded on 10th of February, 2005. As regards the alleged perversity in the findings recorded by the Inquiry officer, it was submitted that the Inquiry Officer had recorded the statements of as many as 14 witnesses, 3 out of whom, namely, PWs 5, 9 and 11 had clearly stated that the petitioner had collected money from the deceased for getting him employed in the CRPF. It was submitted that in the light of the said depositions which the Inquiry Officer and the Appellate Authority have both accepted as trustworthy, it was not possible to describe the finding of guilt recorded by them to be perverse. It was, according to Ms. Palli, not a case where there was no evidence whatsoever to support the charge. ( 7 ) WE have given our careful consideration to the submissions made at the bar and perused the record. The Inquiry Officer has, in the course of the inquiry, recorded the depositions of a large number of witnesses. All these depositions have been recorded in the presence of the petitioner who has cross-examined them at considerable length. There is nothing on record to suggest that the petitioner had at any stage made any grievance that the opportunity given to him to cross-examine the witnesses was not fair and reasonable. Leave aside any written representation to that effect, there is no murmur anywhere in the course of the proceedings that the petitioner was being denied a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses. Merely because the Inquiry Officer had recorded statements of two witnesses per day also would not make any material difference so long as the petitioner had the fullest opportunity to cross-examine each one of those witnesses. Merely because the Inquiry Officer had recorded statements of two witnesses per day also would not make any material difference so long as the petitioner had the fullest opportunity to cross-examine each one of those witnesses. Indeed there were occasions when the petitioner may have himself agreed to get the statements of two witnesses recorded on a given day as is evident from the minutes of the Inquiry proceedings dated 10th February, 2005. So also the fact that the statements of the witnesses were being recorded in the village to which the Inquiry Officer and the petitioner were travelling from their camp makes little difference in so far as the fairness of the inquiry is concerned. Just because the Inquiry officer had, for an expeditious disposal of the inquiry, travelled to the witnesses rather than summoning them to the camp office could not affect the fairness or legitimacy of the inquiry proceedings. The test would in any case remain whether the petitioner has had a fair opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses wherever they were examined and in whatever number they were examined. Our answer to that is in the affirmative. In the absence of any material to show that the petitioner had, at any stage in the course of the inquiry, lodged any protest about the fairness of the procedure or the opportunity given to him to cross-examine the witnesses, we have no hesitation in holding that the inquiry was fair and proper. The first limb of the petitioner's challenge therefore fails and is hereby rejected. ( 8 ) COMING then to the alternative submission made on behalf of the petitioner, we must, at the outset, mention that it is not a case where the petitioner has been found guilty without there being any evidence to support that finding. Even according to learned counsel for the petitioner, it is not a case of no evidence whatsoever. As noticed earlier, the Inquiry Officer has recorded as many as 14 witnesses some of whom have clearly testified that the amount in question was paid to the petitioner in consideration of his procuring a job for the deceased Hari Prasad in the CRPF. The Inquiry Officer and the appellate Authority have found these depositions to be worthy of credence and accordingly held the charge to be proved. The Inquiry Officer and the appellate Authority have found these depositions to be worthy of credence and accordingly held the charge to be proved. This Court would not, in exercise of its powers under Article 226, sit in judgment over the correctness of that finding. It is fairly well settled that a writ court does not re-appraise the evidence so as to substitute its own conclusion for that of the disciplinary authority. Judicial review of proceedings where findings are recorded on the basis of appreciation of evidence is limited to finding out whether there was any evidence which if believed could sustain the charge. It is only where there was no evidence whatsoever that the finding of guilt recorded against a delinquent employee may be held to be perverse. That is not the position in the instant case. There is considerable evidence on record which has been believed by the authorities below while holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charge. We see no justification for interfering with that finding. ( 9 ) IN the result, there is no merit in this petition which fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.