Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 330 (JHR)

Dalip Chand v. Union of India

2013-03-07

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court: Heard counsel for the parties. 2. By order dated 13th April 1999 (Annexure-3) passed by the Disciplinary Authority-cum-Commandant, CISF, Bokaro (Respondent No. 5), the petitioner has been dismissed from service. By order dated 03rd August 1999 / 23rd August 1999 (Annexure-4 series), his appeal has been rejected by the Appellate Authority-cum-Deputy Inspector General, CISF, Bokaro (Respondent No. 4). The respondent no. 3-Inspector General, CISF, Bihar has rejected the revision preferred by the petitioner by order dated 13th June 2000 / 14th June 2000 (Annexure-6/A. These orders are impugned in the present writ application by the petitioner. 3. The short facts of the case relevant for determination of the issue raised in the present writ application, are as follows: The petitioner was a constable working under the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the relevant point of time at Bokaro in October 1998 when he was served with a charge sheet dated 9th October 1998 containing the following charges. Charge No. I - That during the course of C Shift duty on 12.08.1998 from 2100 hrs to 0500 hrs on 13.08.1998, the petitioner recorded four times in the register kept at the Patna Railway Gate of his rounds, although he had taken the two rounds. The said fact was reported by ASI / Exe Sahi Ram vide GD Entry No. 417 dated 13.08.1998 at 0430 hrs at Gate No. 6. Charge No. II - The petitioner threatened the ASI Sahi Ram with dire consequence at 2040 hrs on 13.08.1998 to withdraw the complaint lodged by him against the petitioner vide GD Entry No. 417 dated 13.08.1998. The aforesaid fact of criminal intimidation was recorded at 2120 hrs on 13.08.1998 by ASI Sahi Ram. Charge No. III - Inspector / Exe V.M. Jha, Coy Commandar 'E' Coy was asked to conduct an inquiry into the allegation levelled by the ASI/ Exe Sahi Ram against the petitioner in respect of charge nos. 1 & 2. On 22.08.1998 while he went for checking at duty points manned by the personnel of his Coy and reached slag weigh bridge duty post around 0340 hrs, the petitioner was deployed for duty there. He recorded alertness on the part of the petitioner in the Beat Book. 1 & 2. On 22.08.1998 while he went for checking at duty points manned by the personnel of his Coy and reached slag weigh bridge duty post around 0340 hrs, the petitioner was deployed for duty there. He recorded alertness on the part of the petitioner in the Beat Book. However, in the meantime, the petitioner without any provocation, questioned the propriety of inquiry conducted by the Inspector V.M. Jha against him on the basis of the complaint lodged by ASI Sahi Ram. Thereafter, all of a sudden, he started beating the Inspector V.M. Jha with a lathi he was carrying and caused serious injuries on his both hands. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid charges, petitioner has been departmentally proceeded against for serious acts of misconduct and indiscipline unexpected from a member of the Disciplined Force. Initially, the petitioner did not submit his reply and requested for 20 days leave. He was permitted station leave up to 31st October 1998 while under suspension and subsequently thereafter filed his reply on 05th November 1998. The Inquiry Officer was appointed on 7th November 1998 and the date of hearing was fixed on 20th November 1998. Thereafter on 26th November 1998 and again thereafter , the hearing continued on day to day basis till 28th November 1998. Three prosecution witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution namely, ASI/Exe Sahi Ram (PW-1), Inspector / E V.M. Jha (PW-2) and Asstt. Commandant Shri Ipil Horo (PW-3), one witness namely, HC/Dvr G.D. Singh was examined as a court witness. The petitioner examined 19 witnesses in his favour. On the request of the petitioner, following documents were supplied to him. (a) Extracts of GD Entry Nos. 417 & 447 dated 13.08.1998 (b) Report dated 14.08.1998 submitted by ASI/E Sahi Ram (c) Report of Inspector / E V.M. Jha, Coy Commandar 'E' Coy (d) Extract of Beat Book of slag Weigh Bridge dated 21/22.08.1998 (e) Medical Report of Inspector/E V.M. Jha. (f) Statement of Inspector V.M. Jha, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro (g) Statement of Shri Ipil Horo, Asstt. Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro. On further request of the petitioner, preliminary inquiry report of Dy. Commandant Jagbir Singh and extract of GD No. 776 dated 22.08.1998 of Gate No. 6-C was supplied to him. Eight documents were exhibited which were marked as P/1 to P/8 which co-relate with the documents supplied to the petitioner. Commandant, CISF Unit, BSL, Bokaro. On further request of the petitioner, preliminary inquiry report of Dy. Commandant Jagbir Singh and extract of GD No. 776 dated 22.08.1998 of Gate No. 6-C was supplied to him. Eight documents were exhibited which were marked as P/1 to P/8 which co-relate with the documents supplied to the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner was further allowed to inspect some documents which he had desired. Finally, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report after conclusion of the inquiry on 20th March 1999 before the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiry Report was supplied to the petitioner on 22nd March 1999 giving him 15 days time to file his reply. On his request, the petitioner was supplied the Hindi version of the Inquiry Report on 28th March 1999. The petitioner made his final representation on 1st April 1999. Thereafter, the order imposing punishment has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority on 13th April 1999. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that the defence witnesses examined by him, have stated that the petitioner had completed four rounds on the fateful day in the night of 12th August 1998 and 13th August 1998 and had correctly recorded the GD Entry. However, ASI Sahi Ram has wrongly reported against him. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the Inspector V.M. Jha had changed his statement which he had earlier given at the time when he was admitted in the hospital for treatment of his injuries. Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the statements made in the GD Book 776 were also changed subsequently to implicate the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has also questioned the injuries on the body / hands of the Inspector V.M. Jha (PW-3) to substantiate his contention that the case made out by the PW-3 V.M. Jha that he had been assaulted by the petitioner during the course of duty on 22.08.1998, was false. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter relating to the petitioner having completed only two rounds, was actually complained by Hawaldar D.N. Sahu to ASI Sahi Ram, but he was not examined. On these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders passed by the Higher Authorities of the CISF. Counsel for the petitioner further submits that the matter relating to the petitioner having completed only two rounds, was actually complained by Hawaldar D.N. Sahu to ASI Sahi Ram, but he was not examined. On these facts, learned counsel for the petitioner has assailed the impugned orders passed by the Higher Authorities of the CISF. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of assault by the petitioner is doubtful and therefore, the punishment of dismissal from service is not proportionate to the charges levelled against him. In support of which, he relies upon a judgment reported in 2002 (3) PLJR 217. Counsel for the petitioner therefore submits that these allegations have been levelled against the petitioner only to teach him a lesson and the same are not established by proper inquiry during the course of departmental proceeding conducted against him. The Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority have not considered this aspect of the matter and imposed punishment holding him guilty of the charges. 6. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has supported the impugned orders. He submits that these charges are established from the materials brought on record which are GD Entries which have been entered at the relevant point of time by PW-1 Sahi Ram on the fateful night of 12 / 13.08.1998. He further submits that the allegation of threat contained at charge no. II is duly recorded in the GD Entry No. 417 dated 13.08.1998 at 2120 hrs and in respect of charge no. III, it is submitted that the Inspector V.M. Jha had suffered injuries, which in the opinion of the Medical Officer, could be caused only by assault with hard and blunt object leading to fracture of the Arm of the said Inspector and would not have resulted from fall from the Motorcycle. He submits further that initially for the reason of shame which could not be proper in the disciplined organization like CISF, at the time of admission in the hospital, he had simply stated that he fell from the motorcycle, but he himself in the morning of 23rd 1998 disclosed the fact to the senior officer in the best interest of discipline in the Force and whereafter, the Asstt. Commandant visited him in the office to ascertain and verify the allegation made by the said Inspector. 7. Commandant visited him in the office to ascertain and verify the allegation made by the said Inspector. 7. Counsel for the respondents submits that the facts which have been brought in a thorough inquiry by examining three prosecution witnesses and allowing the petitioner to examine 19 defence witnesses in his favour, conclusively determine the petitioner guilty of the charge of serious misconduct and indiscipline by a member of the Disciplined Force like CISF. In that view of the matter, the Disciplinary Authority finding him guilty of the proved charges, did not find any reason to impose lessor punishment than dismissal from service as it warranted maximum punishment of dismissal from service in order to uphold the image of the Force as also to ensure discipline in the uniform disciplined organization like CISF. The punishment imposed upon the petitioner was further scrutinized in appeal by the Appellate Authority where all grounds raised by the petitioner were considered and the Appellate Authority has also consistently came to the same finding that the punishment is duly proportionate to the charges of grave misconduct established against the petitioner. The Revisional Authority also did not find any reason to interfere with the orders of the Disciplinary Authority as well as the Appellate Authority on these grounds. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length. The petitioner was proceeded against for three charges which have been indicated in the early part of this order. The first charge was in relation to the recording of entries of four rounds in the GD Register in respect of C shift duty in the night of 12th August 1998 from 2100 hrs to 0500 hrs to 13th August 1998. GD Entry No. 417 have been recorded at 0430 hrs in the night of 13.08.1998 by the ASI Sahi Ram who has been examined as PW-1. The petitioner was charge sheeted for the Article of Charges whereunder he had threatened the ASI Sahi Ram on 13.08.1998 at 1240 hrs and this fact has also been recorded in the GD Entry No. 417 on 13.08.1998 by the ASI Sahi Ram who himself has deposed during the proceeding. These allegations were directed to be inquired by the Inspector V.M. Jha. These allegations were directed to be inquired by the Inspector V.M. Jha. For the aforesaid purpose, in the night of 22.08.1998 while on duty at the points where the petitioner was posted, the petitioner question him first about the propriety of the enquiry and thereafter he is said to have assaulted him by causing injuries on both of his hands. 9. The prosecution has examined three witnesses in support of the aforesaid allegations. These witnesses were actually the victims of threat and assault made by the petitioner on the relevant dates i.e. 13.08.1998 and 22.08.1998. It further appears that the claim of the petitioner based upon statements of the defence witnesses that he had completed four rounds in the night of 12.08.1998, cannot said to have demolished the charges which were found to be established on the basis of the deposition of ASI Sahi Ram himself who had recorded the relevant GD Entry No. 417 on 13.08.1998 at 0430 hrs at Gate No. 6. Different constables who have deposed in favour of the petitioner, were posted at different places while the petitioner was required to complete four rounds in the relevant night and record it in the G.D. entry in the presence of ASI who himself has found that he had completed only two rounds and signed four times in the register. In the inquiry proceeding, the ASI Sahi Ram only deposed in support of the charges against the petitioner that he had indulged in only two rounds of duty while recording four rounds and he also deposed that the petitioner had threatened him on the same night on 13.08.1998 at 2040 hrs which was also recorded in the GD Entry No. 417 dated 13.08.1998. 10. The Inspector V.M. Jha though may have stated a different version at the time of his admission in the hospital, but the doctor in his report, has found that he had suffered an injury which could not have been sustained by a motorcycle accident; rather it could be sustained by blow by some object or fall on object directly on the bone of the firearm which could lead to the fracture of the Arm of the petitioner. Proper examination of the motorcycle also had shown that the scratches were found on the petrol tank and blood stains were there on the tank which could only be caused by assault made by the petitioner which was supported during the course of inquiry by the Inspector V.M. Jha (PW-3) in his examination. In any case, in matters relating to the departmental proceeding, in exercise of judicial review, this court is not required to weigh sufficiency of evidence which has led the Inquiry Officer to arrive at a guilt of the delinquent. This is not a case of no evidence. Rather, the petitioner has been allowed to examine 19 witnesses and prosecution has examined 03 witnesses and, several documents which directly relates to the charges, have also been marked as exhibits during the course of departmental inquiry. A detailed Inquiry Report comprising 17 pages were submitted by the Inquiry Officer before the Disciplinary Authority discussing each and every charges and also the depositions of each and every witnesses examined on behalf of either parties. The petitioner was thereafter given opportunity to make representation against his guilt recorded in the Inquiry Report and the order of punishment has been passed by the Disciplinary Authority discussing the entire evidence and the representation made by the petitioner vide his order dated 13th April 1999. The Appellate Authority has also considered the entire grounds of appeal raised by the petitioner and after discussing the grounds of appeal, the Appellate Authority also came to the same conclusion that the petitioner had rightly been imposed the punishment of dismissal from service for established charges of serious misconduct and indiscipline. He has also taken into account the conduct of the petitioner that the Inspector V.M. Jha had, in the morning of 23rd August 1998, disclosed the fact regarding the assault made by the petitioner and it was also corroborated and established during the course of inquiry by the examination of the witnesses. The Appellate Authority has also dismissed his appeal and the Revisional Authority in his order dated 14.06.2000 did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact. He has also discussed the grounds which were raised by the petitioner while upholding the original order as well as the appellate order. 11. The Appellate Authority has also dismissed his appeal and the Revisional Authority in his order dated 14.06.2000 did not find any reason to interfere with the findings of fact. He has also discussed the grounds which were raised by the petitioner while upholding the original order as well as the appellate order. 11. In these facts and circumstances and the reasons discussed herein above, it is clear that the petitioner had been imposed punishment of dismissal from service for gross misconduct amounting to not only dereliction of duty, but also threatening and assaulting the higher and superior officers up to the rank of Inspector who had gone to inquire into the matter on the direction of the higher authorities. Such acts of indiscipline cannot be condoned in the disciplined Force like the CISF. Therefore, the punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot said to be disproportionate in any manner to the established charges of gross misconduct. 12. In that view of the matter, I do not find that the judgment relied upon the petitioner are applicable to the present case as the inquiry in the present case has clearly established guilt of the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit.