Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 143 (CAL)

Surja Ram v. Union of India

2016-02-08

SANJIB BANERJEE

body2016
JUDGMENT : The petition has been received at a belated stage since the petitioner pursued his remedies before the Rajasthan High Court, failed on the ground of territorial jurisdiction and has been permitted by the Supreme Court to challenge the punishment awarded in a disciplinary action against him before the appropriate court. The petitioner was a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force posted at the then IISCO at Burnpur. The charges against the petitioner were that the petitioner was absent without leave for four days from March 19, 1993 to March 22, 1993 and that during such period the petitioner had been arrested by the local police authorities in a red-light area which was strictly off bounds for CISF personnel. The petitioner was charged with creating disorder in a drunken state in a red-light area and the petitioner gave a false name to the police upon being arrested. Upon the petitioner contesting the charges levelled against him and submitting his written representation, an inquiry officer was appointed to inquire into the matter. Among the witnesses produced in course of the inquiry was another constable by the name of Balwan Singh who was a co-accused in the police complaint of drunken disorderliness in the red-light area. The evidence before the inquiry officer was that another constable of the CISF visited the police lock-up and found both the petitioner and Balwan Singh therein, though the petitioner had given a different name for himself. The further charge against the petitioner was that despite his arrest, the petitioner failed to disclose the matter to the CISF authorities and attempted to suppress the same. As regards his absence without leave, the petitioner contended that he was unwell and, hence, failed to attend to his duties. The petitioner cited the mess attendance register to suggest that since the petitioner had been shown to have taken the regular meals, there was no question of the petitioner going to any red-light area on March 20, 1993 to indulge in any of the activities which had been alleged against him. However, in course of the inquiry, the petitioner could not establish that the petitioner had either reported his sickness to any medical officer or to his Commandant or any superior. As to the presence of the petitioner in the red-light area, the same was established by eyewitnesses who found the petitioner to have been arrested for drunken disorderliness. However, in course of the inquiry, the petitioner could not establish that the petitioner had either reported his sickness to any medical officer or to his Commandant or any superior. As to the presence of the petitioner in the red-light area, the same was established by eyewitnesses who found the petitioner to have been arrested for drunken disorderliness. The fact that the petitioner failed to report for his official duties but may have had his meals at the mess could not detract from the charge of the petitioner being absent without leave and of the other gross charges of the petitioner having visited an area that was off bounds for CISF personnel and being arrested for creating disorder in a public place. The petitioner was given the fullest opportunity to defend the charges. The petitioner made a further written representation after receipt of the findings of the inquiry officer. The disciplinary authority considered the petitioner’s objections to the findings rendered by the inquiry officer and gave adequate reasons for accepting the inquiry findings. The petitioner has been dismissed from service. The appellate authority considered the matter and applied its independent mind to the grounds which were taken by the petitioner. The appellate order was also challenged in revision by the petitioner and the revisional authority has noticed the facts and concurred with the findings and the order of punishment against the petitioner. In exercise of the limited scope of judicial review in matters of the present kind, the court does not sift through the papers or the evidence to reappraise the facts or the evidence. It is only when the evidence is such that the meanest mind could not have arrived at the conclusion that has been arrived at, may the writ court undo the finding or interfere with the domestic process. Once the writ court finds that a reasonable opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to defend himself, that the procedure adopted in course of the proceedings was by and large fair and cogent reasons have been given in support of the final order, the writ court will scarcely supplant its opinion or view in place of that of the appropriate authorities, who had the jurisdiction to consider and decide on the matter. Since no irregularity in the procedure has been demonstrated and the punishment does not appear to be disproportionate to the misconduct that has been established against the petitioner, the order of punishment that has been passed against the petitioner and has been affirmed in the superior domestic for a does not call for any interference. WP 938(W) of 2016 is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.