Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 583 (CAL)

Kalpajit Chakraborty v. Union of India

2018-08-17

DEBANGSU BASAK

body2018
JUDGMENT : Debangsu Basak, J. 1. A disciplinary proceeding, the charge-sheet issued therein, the report of the enquiry officer, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority, the order of the appellate authority as also the order of the revisional authority are under challenge in the present writ petition. 2. The petitioner was a constable working with the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF). The petitioner was issued a charge-sheet on March 30, 2007 detailing three charges against the petitioner. In accordance with the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, a presenting officer and an enquiry officer were appointed. The petitioner filed reply to the charges. Witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution. A right of cross-examination was granted to the petitioner. The petitioner wanted deferment of such right of cross-examination for three days. The same was disallowed. 3. Learned advocate appearing for the petitioner relies upon AIR 1985 SC 1121 (Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer. & Ors.) and (2009) 2 SCC 541 (Union of India & Ors. v. Prakash Kumar Tandon) and submits that, the principles of natural justice are embodied in a rule or a disciplinary proceeding unless the applicability of such principles are' expressly excluded. In the present case, he submits that, neither the Central Industrial Security Force Act, 1968 nor the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001, excludes the applicability of the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the principles of natural justice are applicable to the disciplinary proceeding at various stages including before the enquiry officer. A right of cross-examination is to be allowed to a delinquent. In the event, such right is denied, then the proceedings can be vitiated by reasons of, breach of principles of natural justice. In the present case, since the petitioner was denied a right, of cross-examination by the enquiry officer, the disciplinary proceeding stands vitiated. 4. He draws the attention of the Court to the nature of the charges levelled and the quantum of punishment imposed. He submits that, the quantum of punishment is not commensurate with the charges proved, assuming though not admitting that, the disciplinary proceeding was conducted, in accordance with the law. Therefore, the Court should intervene. 5. The respondents are represented. 6. As noted above, the petitioner was a Constable of the CISF. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A charge-sheet dated March 30, 2007 was issued against the petitioner containing three articles of charges. Therefore, the Court should intervene. 5. The respondents are represented. 6. As noted above, the petitioner was a Constable of the CISF. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against the petitioner. A charge-sheet dated March 30, 2007 was issued against the petitioner containing three articles of charges. The first charge relates to the disobedience of a lawful order given to the petitioner to proceed to a new place. Such disobedience and denial on the part of the petitioner was treated as tantamounting to gross indiscipline, misconduct and disobedience unbecoming of a disciplined member of a force. The second charge relates to disobedience of lawful order to receive and acknowledge the official communication of suspension. The same was also viewed as an act of indiscipline, misconduct and disobedience unbecoming of a disciplined member of a force. The third charge relates to the incorrigible habit of misconduct and indiscipline shown by the petitioner and the failure of the petitioner to improve himself. The charges were inquired into. The petitioner initially did not participate in the enquiry proceedings. He applied, by a letter dated September 5, 2007 to set aside the ex parte proceedings during the period from September 8, 2007 to September 21, 2007 and to recall the prosecution witnesses to allow the petitioner to cross-examine the same. This request was rejected by a writing of the enquiry officer. The enquiry report gives reasons as to why the charges against the petitioner stands proved. So far as cross-examination is concerned, it is not a case that, the petitioner was denied the right of cross-examination. It is a case where the petitioner although being given the right of cross-examination wanted deferment of the date of cross-examination. Essentially, the petitioner wanted an adjournment. The same was denied. As a Writ Court, I need not interfere with the exercise of discretion by the enquiry officer unless it is substantiated that, the enquiry officer had acted with mala fide or on extraneous consideration while exercising such discretion. No material is placed before me to arrive at such a finding that, the enquiry officer had acted on extraneous consideration or mala fide in rejecting the prayer for adjournment. The enquiry report is detailed. It deals, with every aspect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution in support of the charges and the reply of the petitioner. The enquiry report is detailed. It deals, with every aspect of the charges levelled against the petitioner, the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution in support of the charges and the reply of the petitioner. It finds the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled. The disciplinary authority considers the report of the enquiry officer and is of the view that, a punishment of dismissal from service is to be imposed. It imposes such punishment. The petitioner preferred an appeal from the order of disciplinary authority. The appellate authority concurred with the view expressed by the disciplinary authority. The petitioner preferred a revisional application, which was rejected by the revisional authority. At all stages, the authorities gave reasons for the decisions that they have arrived at. Such decisions have not been substantiated to be perverse. 7. Anil Kumar (supra) is of the view that, the disciplinary enquiry being a quasi-judicial enquiry should be held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer is to act judicially. It has to apply its mind to the evidence adduced before it and arrive at the conclusion by giving proper reasons thereto. In the present case, the report of the enquiry officer is detailed. It discusses the evidence placed on record and gives reasons for the conclusion. There is no failure on the part of the enquiry officer to act judicially, impartially or to adhere to the principles of natural justice. Prakash Kumar Tandon (supra) is of the view that, when the departmental enquiry is vitiated by bias, the same is required to be set aside. It also notes that, it is incumbent upon the enquiry officer to consider the request for summoning a particular witness and to pass order thereon. In the present case, the petitioner does not complain that, the enquiry officer failed to summon any witness that the petitioner wanted to produce. Quite to the contrary, the enquiry officer rejected a prayer for adjournment of cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses. The enquiry officer has the discretion to reject such prayer. The exercise of such discretion need not be interfered by a Writ Court, unless, exercise of such discretion is established to be actuated by mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. None of such grounds are substantiated in the present writ petition. 8. In such circumstances, I am afraid to grant any relief to the petitioner. The exercise of such discretion need not be interfered by a Writ Court, unless, exercise of such discretion is established to be actuated by mala fide or based on extraneous considerations. None of such grounds are substantiated in the present writ petition. 8. In such circumstances, I am afraid to grant any relief to the petitioner. W.P. No. 159(W) of 2010 is dismissed. 9. There shall be no order as to costs. Urgent website certified copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.