Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2016 DIGILAW 208 (UTT)

Puran Chandra v. Union of India

2016-05-09

K.M.JOSEPH, V.K.BIST

body2016
JUDGMENT : K.M. Jospeh, J. Appellant is the writ petitioner. The writ petition was filed seeking the following relief: “(a) Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14th August, 2006, passed by the respondent no. 4, appellate order dated 21st November, 2006 passed by respondent no. 3 and order dated 7.02.2007 passed by respondent no. 2 (Annexure No. 1, 2 & 3).” 2. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. The appellant was a Constable in C.I.S.F. with the trade of Cook. From 04.03.2006 to 09.03.2006, the appellant, while posted at Tehri Hydro Development Corporation, was on rest on the basis of his being sick. His ailment was pain in the stomach. According to him, he developed toothache on 07.03.2006 and, thereafter, for this reason, he reached Jolly Grant Hospital in Dehradun and he was treated in the said Hospital. Appellant met Mr. Bhanu Bhaskar, S.P./SPE, CBI, Dehradun. Appellant came to be detained and finally, charges were framed against him on 14.08.2006, which reads as follows: Article of charge-I “That the said No. 901560016 Cook Puran Chand of CISF Unit THDC Tehri during the medical rest from 04.03.2006 to 09.03.2006 left the Unit has without permission of the competent authority and visited the office of Superintendent of Police, CBI Dehradun on 08.03.2006 thereby committed an act of gross misconduct and dereliction of duties Hence the charge.” Article of charge-II “That the said no. 901560016 cook Puran Chand of CISF Unit, THDC Tehri has failed to maintain absolute integrity in that on 08.03.2006 he impersonated himself as Constable of CBI and asked Sri Bhanu Bhaskar, SP/SPE, CBI Dehradun to favour a candidate named Prem Singh chest no. 1189 for his selection as constable in Uttaranchal Police. The act committed by No. 901550016 cook Puran Chand, amounts to gross misconduct and unbecoming of a member of disciplined force, hence the Charge.” 3. The Inquiry Officer, who was appointed, found both the charges proved. The appellant was dismissed. The alternate remedies, which were sought, were unsuccessful. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that this is a case, where the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition relying on the fact that there were 17 occasions, when the appellant was punished. The appellant was dismissed. The alternate remedies, which were sought, were unsuccessful. Accordingly, the writ petition was filed. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that this is a case, where the learned Single Judge was not justified in dismissing the writ petition relying on the fact that there were 17 occasions, when the appellant was punished. He would make an attempt to point out that those were very trivial things and this should not have been considered by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, he contended that which P.W.-2, P.W.-3, P.W.-4 and P.W.-5 were the employees of the C.I.S.F., who were examined and some of them were cross-examined also, the crucial question was the effect of non-examination of Sri Bhanu Bhaskar, S.P./SPE, CBI, Dehradun to prove the case of impersonation by the appellant, who was a Constable of the C.I.S.F., as the Constable of CBI and pressurizing the SP to appoint one Prem Singh as a Constable in the Uttarakhand Police. The learned Single Judge noted that, while it is true that Sri Bhanu Bhaskar was not examined and the appellant was not given opportunity to cross-examine him, there was on record a letter written by Sri Bhanu Bhaskar to the Assistant Commandant C.I.S.F. on 08.03.2006. He would rely on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “Roop Singh Negi vs. Punjab National Bank and others” reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 . Therein, the Hon’ble Apex Court, inter alia, held as follows: “14. Indisputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasi-judicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasi-judicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be the evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order. 6. No witness was examined to prove the said documents. The management witnesses merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance, inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence. 5. Learned counsel for the respondents supported the order. 6. At this juncture, it is relevant to notice the nature of the allegations, which have been levelled in the writ petition. In the writ petition, the appellant has, inter alia, stated as follows: “7. That since the father of the petitioner was seriously ill at home so after consulting the doctor at Jolly Grant Hospital Dehradun and taking medicines, he enquired about the health of his father in response of which his uncle requested him to enquire about one Prem Singh, S/o Sri Darmyan Singh, who had appeared at the physical test for Uttaranchal Police Recruitment. The petitioner only enquired as to what had appended in that matter in respect of the boy Prem Singh. The petitioner also wanted to remit some money to his father for his treatment, so he also had about Rs.9250/- on him besides ATM card, personal diary, purse and telephone slips. 9. That the officials of the S.P. office on the other hand confiscated the petitioner’s identity card and levelled false charges against the petitioner and it was alleged that the petitioner impersonated himself as CBI constable posted in BS & FC Wing of CBI Yasbant place Chanakya Puri New Delhi to the SP C.B.I. Dehradun and asked the SP CBI to favour a candidate name Prem Singh for his selection as constable in Uttaranchal Police. 10. That the charges leveled against the petitioner were totally false and fabricated. On being asked the S.P., CBI Dehradun the petitioner told him that he was then serving as a Cook (A class IV employee) in CISF, THDC unit Tehri, as also told him that he had been on deputation in C.B.I. in 1997 nothing but these things were told or stated or meant by the petitioner. 11. On being asked the S.P., CBI Dehradun the petitioner told him that he was then serving as a Cook (A class IV employee) in CISF, THDC unit Tehri, as also told him that he had been on deputation in C.B.I. in 1997 nothing but these things were told or stated or meant by the petitioner. 11. That on being asked in the office of S.P., CBI Dehradun the petitioner produced the identity cards of CISF and also CBI which was given to him during the period when he was on deputation in CBI, since the petitioner is a class IV employee and is only VIII pass, hence not aware of the meticulous details of the rules and regulations of the service and so had not surrendered the identity card issued by the CBI during the period of his deputation in the same. Even at the time of clearance, the administrative office of CBI did not ask him to surrender it nor his original department CISF ever instructed him to surrender or return it, the petitioner neither misused the said identity card nor even imagined to do that. The money purse, personal diary, telephone slip and Rs. 9250/- were taken away from the petitioner at S.P. CBI office Dehradun, which have been handed over to the commandant unit, but still have not been released to the petitioner. 7. Therefore, from this, we can safely conclude the following: The appellant, while working as a Constable in C.I.S.F., did go over to the office of C.B.I. at Dehradun. He met the SP. He was having with him the Identity Card showing him as a Constable in the C.B.I. This card, apparently, he obtained when he was earlier a Constable in the C.B.I. on deputation. He came back to serve at C.I.S.F. Very strangely, he continued to keep the card showing him to be a Constable in the C.B.I. much after his deputation had ended. It is also not in dispute that this card was taken from him. He came back to serve at C.I.S.F. Very strangely, he continued to keep the card showing him to be a Constable in the C.B.I. much after his deputation had ended. It is also not in dispute that this card was taken from him. All this put together, in the facts of this case and the fact that he, admittedly, met the SP, it gives considerable assurance to us, though the letter as such was not proved by examining Sri Bhanu Bhaskar, that the appellant did meet the SP, C.B.I., apparently, having in his possession a card showing him to be a Constable in the C.B.I., a card, which had long outlived its effectiveness and life. Appellant also does admit that he was interested in the case of Prem Singh. Therefore, in such circumstances, we would think that, in the facts of this case, the non-examination of Sri Bhanu Bhaskar may not be fatal. 8. It is true that the appellant has been visited with 17 punishments, but, according to Sri Bhagwat Mehra, learned counsel for the appellant, they all relate to very trivial matters. Sri Bhagwat Mehra has a case that, at any rate, the punishment of dismissal should not have been imposed. He points out the appellant’s personal difficulties; his having two unmarried daughters; his working as a cook; and his being 48 years of age. 9. Having regard to all this, while confirming the findings about the appellant in the inquiry, we would think that the question relating to punishment of dismissal may be reconsidered by the authorities. 10. Accordingly, while we uphold the impugned order to the extent of finding the appellant guilty, we only direct that respondent no.2 i.e. Inspector General, C.I.S.F. will consider whether the appellant could be visited with a lesser punishment than dismissal, including an order of compulsory retirement, which, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, is provided under the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968. The exercise for reconsidering this question will be completed within a period of two months from the date of production of a copy of this judgment. To the said extent, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge will stand modified.