Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 185 (PAT)

Const. Darshan Singh v. Union of India

2014-02-06

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Assistant Solicitor General, appearing on behalf of the Union of India. 2. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 21.9.1999, whereby the following punishment has been imposed upon him by an order passed by the Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force, Rourkela:– “The pay of No. 895020060 Const. Darshan Singh be reduced to the minimum of the scale, i.e. Rs. 3050/- in the time scale of his pay Rs. 3050-75-80-4590 for a period of 05 (five) years. It is further directed that No. 895020060 Const. Darshan Singh will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on the expiry of this period the reduction will have the effect of postponing his future increments of pay.” 3. The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order passed on a revision petition filed by the petitioner against the said order of punishment, by the Inspector General, Central Industrial Security Force, Eastern Sector Head Quarters, Patna, dismissing the said revision petition. The petitioner at the relevant point of time was posted as Constable, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, RSP Rourkela. 4. There are certain facts which are not in dispute. 5. The petitioner was proceeded against departmentally on the ground of gross indiscipline and misconduct with the charge that he assaulted a constable of CISF, Pokharkar A.B. on 24.5.1999 in the barrack with lathi causing multiple bruises on his hands; without any provocation. The petitioner was given an opportunity to file his written statement of defence and to participate in the inquiry proceeding. As a matter of fact, no procedural lapse in holding the departmental proceeding has been alleged. The Inquiry Officer found the charge to be proved, on the basis of the evidence collected in course of departmental inquiry. Agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority imposed the said punishment. This is to be noted that copy of the Inquiry report was supplied to the petitioner. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse inasmuch as, even the persons said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence did not support the charge as would be evident from the impugned order itself. 6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse inasmuch as, even the persons said to be the eye-witnesses to the occurrence did not support the charge as would be evident from the impugned order itself. He submits that accept the complainant himself, no other witness has supported the allegation against the petitioner and the allegation against the petitioner is accordingly falsified. 7. The submission made on behalf of the petitioner that the findings of the Inquiry Officer are perverse as there is no evidence in support of the charge cannot be accepted. The evidence of the complainant has been brought on record by way of Annexure-6. It can be said on the basis of that, that there was some evidence in support of the charge as levelled in the disciplinary proceeding. On the basis of such evidence, if the Inquiry Officer reached to a finding that the charge stood proved, such finding cannot be said to be perverse, in a departmental inquiry. From the impugned order of the disciplinary authority I find that he has taken note of the fact that some eye-witnesses attempted to suppress the real fact. Be that as it may, the finding of the Inquiry Officer and that of the disciplinary authority cannot be said to be without any basis. It is well settled principle that strict rules of evidence are not required to be applied in a disciplinary proceeding and the charge is not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, rather it has to be proved on the basis of preponderance of probabilities. Punishment imposed upon the petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charge leveled and proved against him, he being a member of disciplined Para-military force. 8. I do not finding any infirmity in the impugned order. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.