Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1091 (MP)

Ram Singh v. State of M. P.

2012-10-31

S.K.GANGELE

body2012
Judgment Shri Gangele, J.;- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition against the orders Annexure P/1, dated 29th October, 2006, Annexure P/2, dated 15th February, 2007 and Annexure P/3, dated 11th June, 2007. The petitioner had been working as Constable [Trade man] in State Armed Forces [in shot 'SAF'] and he was charge-sheeted for a misconduct that he had taken money of Rs. 1,20,000/- from one Arvind Singh Jatav S/o. Late Shri Panchu Jatav for the purpose of securing a job in SAF. Hence, he had committed corrupt practices and tarnished the image of the Department in public due to his conduct. 2. The petitioner denied the charge and submitted that the complaint was filed by the complainant after a period of four years. Thereafter, an enquiry officer was appointed. The enquiry officer after conducting the enquiry found the charge proved against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of removal of the petitioner from service. 3. Against the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed an appeal, that was dismissed vide Annexure P/2. Thereafter, a revision was filed, that was also dismissed vide Annexure P/3. 4. Complainant Arvind Singh Jatav S/o. Late Shri Panchu Jatav, R/o. Village and P.O. Sakin, P.S. Samthar, District Jhansi, in his complaint, stated that on 20-11-2001 he along with elder brother Shri Ramlal Jatav and other persons had gone to the house of the petitioner and paid him an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- for securing a job in SAF. On the instructions of the petitioner, the complainant had appeared in the selection of Police Constable conducted at District Chhatarpur, however, he could not get selection. The petitioner received money from him, however, that money was not returned back. The complaint was submitted on 4-6-2005. It is a fact that as per the complainant, he had paid the amount to the petitioner on 20-11-2001 but he submitted a complaint to this effect on 4-6-2005 after a period of four and half years. The enquiry officer recorded the statements of complainant Arvind Singh Jatav, elder bother of complainant Shri Ramlal Jatav, Babulal S/o. Dev Singh Jatav, Shri Ramhet Singh S/o. Late Shri Hariram Jatav. All the witnesses have deposed that the complainant had paid an amount of Rupees One Lac to the petitioner for the purpose of securing a job and recruitment in the police. All the witnesses have deposed that the complainant had paid an amount of Rupees One Lac to the petitioner for the purpose of securing a job and recruitment in the police. The petitioner told the complainant that he was assigned the duty at Bungalow of DIG and he would secure a job to the complainant from DIG Sahab. In the preliminary enquiry, the complainant deposed that he had paid an amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as cash but in regular enquiry he stated that he had paid an amount of Rupees One Lac to the petitioner and he had incurred Rs. 20,000/- as journey expenses. In regard to payment of money to the petitioner, the enquiry officer relied on the aforesaid oral evidence and held that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct and misconduct is proved against him. 5. The fact remains that as per the complainant and other witnesses the amount was paid to the petitioner on 20-11-2001 at his residence and complaint was submitted to the Commandant on 04-06-2005. The reason for delay in lodging the complaint as explained by the complainant and other witnesses is that they had demanded the money back from the petitioner but when the money was not paid, the complaint was lodged. It is a fact that for a period of four and half years, the complainant and other witnesses kept mum. They did not disclose the aforesaid fact to any other person. All the witnesses and the complainant are related witnesses. 6. The petitioner in his reply specifically stated that no reasons have been assigned by the complainant that why the complaint was lodged after a period of four and half years. He further stated that he was not afforded an opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and the enquiry officer recorded the statements at his own will. However, the petitioner himself before the Investigating Officer deposed that he was satisfied with the enquiry proceedings. The petitioner himself cross-examined the witnesses. There is only oral evidence against the petitioner. The report was lodged after long delay of four and half years. That delay has not been properly explained. It is also mentioned by the disciplinary authority in the order that same type of charge was levelled against the petitioner in other enquiry proceedings also. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank and Others Vs. That delay has not been properly explained. It is also mentioned by the disciplinary authority in the order that same type of charge was levelled against the petitioner in other enquiry proceedings also. 7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of General Manager (P), Punjab and Sind Bank and Others Vs. Daya Singh (2010) 11 SCC 233 has held as under in regard to power of the High Court to interfere in Departmental Enquiry proceedings:- 24. Absence of reasons in a disciplinary order would amount to denial of natural justice to the charge-sheeted employee. But the present case was certainly not one of that category. Once the charges were found to have been established, the High Court had no reason to interfere in the decision. Even though there was sufficient documentary evidence on record, the High Court has chosen to hold that the findings of the enquiry officer were perverse. A perverse finding is one which is based on no evidence or one that no reasonable person would arrive at. This has been held by this Court long back in Triveni Rubber & Plastics V. CCE, AIR 1994 SC 1341 . Unless it is found that some relevant evidence has not been considered or that certain inadmissible material has been taken into consideration the finding cannot be said to be perverse. The legal position in this behalf has been recently reiterated in Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206 . The decision of the High Court cannot therefore be sustained. 25. As held in T.N.C.S. Corpn. Ltd. v. K. Meerabai (2006) 2 SCC 255 , the scope of judicial review for the High Court in departmental disciplinary matters is limited. The observations of this Court in Bank of India v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999) 5 SCC 762 are quite instructive:- 11. Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectively may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectively may arrive at a finding upholding the gravamen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental enquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental enquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectively could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, AIR 1964 SC 364 the Constitution Bench has held:- 23...... the High Court can and must enquire whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if the whole of the evidence led in the enquiry is accepted as true, does the conclusion follow that the charge in question is proved against the respondent ? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not. From the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in which the Constitution Bench judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India v. H.C. Goel , AIR 1964 SC 364 has been quoted, the legal principle of law is that the Court can interfere in departmental enquiry proceedings when a reasonable man acting reasonably after considering the entire evidence of the departmental enquiry may arrive at the conclusion that the charge in question is proved against the employee. 8. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the report by the complainant in regard to taking money from the complainant, had been submitted after a delay of four and half years. 8. In the present case, it is admitted fact that the report by the complainant in regard to taking money from the complainant, had been submitted after a delay of four and half years. The complainant in his evidence stated that he had demanded the money from the petitioner at many times and when the money was not paid, he made the complaint. It is also a fact that all the witnesses are the relatives of the complainant. Apart from the oral evidence, there is no other evidence to support the misconduct. The oral evidence has to be considered after taking other surrounding facts. It is a fact that for a period of four and half years the complainant did not approach any authority, neither he had made complaint to any person other than his relatives to the effect that the petitioner had taken money. In the complaint, he had stated that the petitioner had taken Rs. 1,20,000/-, however, subsequently he deposed that the petitioner had taken only Rupees One lac. It is further submitted that the petitioner informed the complainant that he was on the duty of Bungalow of DIG and he would secure a job in SAF to the complainant. 9. In my opinion, the delay of four and half years is a factor in regard to the authenticity of version of the complainant. There is only oral evidence to that effect. It is also a fact that some other enquiry was also pending against the petitioner for the same nature of allegation but only on this basis, he could not be held guilty for the misconduct. The enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority did not consider the fact that there was delay of four and half years in lodging the complaint. In such circumstances, in my opinion, the authorities have committed an error of law in holding that the misconduct is proved against the petitioner. However, looking to the facts of the case and the fact that other departmental enquiry proceedings were also pending against the petitioner and the petitioner was also punished earlier for misconduct and looking to the nature of the misconduct, in my opinion, the petitioner is not entitled for the salary from the date of passing of order in regard to removal of the petitioner from the service up-to his reinstatement on the principle of "no work, no pay". Consequently, the petition of the petitioner is disposed of with the following directions:- (I) That, the impugned orders Annexure P/1, dated 29th October, 2006, Annexure P/2, dated 15th February, 2007 and Annexure P/3, dated 11th June, 2007, are quashed. (II) The order in regard to removal of the petitioner from the service is hereby set aside. (III) It is ordered that the petitioner is entitled reinstatement with continuity of service, however, he would not be entitled any back wages on the principle of "no work, no pay". No order as to costs.