Delhi High Court
Amar Singh vs Inspector General Of Police on 24 December, 2010
Author: Gita Mittal
Bench: Gita Mittal, J.R. Midha
1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C)No.3689/1994
Date of Decision : 24th December, 2010
%
AMAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through : Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.
versus
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE ..... Respondent
Through : Mr. Satya Saharawat, Adv.
for Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may NO
be allowed to see the Judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be NO
reported in the Digest?
GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)
1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 11th of April, 1994 passed by the respondent against him finding him guilty of the charges with which he was charged and punished with dismissal from service. Disciplinary proceedings were ordered against the petitioner by the Commandant of the 102 Battalion of the Rapid Action Force („RAF‟ hereafter) by a memo dated 16th May, 1993 on the under mentioned charge:-
"ARTICLE-I "That the said No.821150587 Claims Tribunal/Dver Amar Singh while functioning as a Claims Tribunal/Dvr during the period of his posting at Dett-HQ 102 Bn RAF Theriwal (Punjab) committed an act of misconduct in W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 1 of 12 his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 in that he refused to perform sentry duty on 1/4/93 without any reason and misbehaved with Guard Commander and also tried to assault him which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force."
2. Shri G.S. Mehta, Deputy Commandant of the said Battalion was appointed as Inquiry Officer who conducted the inquiry against the petitioner. To substantiate the aforesaid charge, five prosecution witnesses were examined.
3. The respondents have contended that the petitioner was given full opportunity to defend himself during the course of inquiry but he refused to defend the charges or to participate in the inquiry. The petitioner is stated to have refused to respond in any manner to inquiry officer. He also refused to produce any witness or document on his defence. In this background, the disciplinary inquiry was proceeded with ex-parte.
The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 16th December, 1993. As no Commandant was in office in the 102 Battalion of the RAF, CRPF, the disciplinary proceedings were forwarded to the office of RAF at New Delhi.
4. After consideration of the record, the disciplinary authority passed an order dated 11th April, 1994 agreeing with the report of the findings and the report of the inquiry officer and found that the aforenoticed charge has been proved beyond any iota of doubt against the petitioner. The disciplinary authority has also concluded that the petitioner was not a fit person to be retained in service in a disciplined W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 2 of 12 force like the CRPF. Accordingly, in exercise of powers conferred on the disciplinary authority under Rule 27 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 („CRPF Rules‟ hereafter), the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment of dismissal from service from the date of issuance of the order upon the petitioner. It was further directed that he be struck off from the strength of the 102 Battalion with effect from the same date.
5. The challenge by the petitioner is premised on the submission that the proceedings were initiated malafide at the instance of one Shri V.C. Kala, who was then posted as the Deputy Commandant, 102 Battalion of the RAF. Shri V.C. Kala has been arrayed as respondent No.3 before this Court.
6. So far as the allegations against the respondent No.3 are concerned, the petitioner submits that while proceeding on leave on 20th February, 1993, the respondent No.3 had used the official vehicle No.DL-4C-B-0872 driven by the petitioner from Theriwal to Amritsar Railway Station and back. In this regard, reliance is placed on an indent and order form. A photocopy of the document purporting to be said indent and order form dated 20th February, 1993 has been placed on record. The petitioner submits that as per the rule requirement, such indent had to be completed and signed by the respondent No.3 who, so far as the journey was concerned, was the Initiating Officer. The petitioner submits that respondent No.3 had refused to sign the indent for the reason W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 3 of 12 that he was on leave and could not sign the same. The petitioner submits that he was compelled to adjust the 75 odd kms journey against some other officer‟s indent. As, the petitioner had shown his reluctance to do so, he had earned the wrath of the respondent No.3 who had threatened to settle his scores with him upon return from leave.
7. The petitioner claims to have made a request for transfer dated 23rd February, 1993 submitted by him under an apprehension of damage to his service at the hands of respondent No.3.
8. In order to substantiate his contention that respondent No.3 was nursing grouse against him, the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner‟s request for leave on 28th March, 1993 for the reason that his wife was seriously ill and hospitalized was rejected by the respondent No.3.
9. So far as the incident on 1st/2nd April, 1993 with which he has been charged, the petitioner submits that late in the night of 1st April, 1993, he had noticed some person trying to make an entry into the battalion compound by scaling the boundary fencing. The petitioner was unable to recognize the intruder on account of insufficiency of light. As a measure of caution and being duty bound, the petitioner had warned the intruder and commanded him to stop. When the intruder failed to respond to such command, the petitioner had repeated the same. At about this time, someone had exclaimed that he had been hit. On approaching with other juniors of the battalion, the intruder W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 4 of 12 was identified as Sub-Inspector Sukhbir Singh in civilian dress.
10. In the writ petition, the petitioner has disputed any involvement in the incident with which he was charged and has urged malice against respondent No.3 for the charge which has been laid against him and initiation of the departmental action as well as disciplinary inquiry which was conducted against him.
11. So far as the disciplinary proceedings against the petitioner are concerned, it is contended that the petitioner was never served with the copy of the chargesheet or the notices of the inquiry. The petitioner contends that he has been denied the fair opportunity to contest the allegations against him or to defend the charges. It is urged that the petitioner never refused to participate and has been denied the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and for this reason the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed.
12. In view of the nature of challenge made by the petitioner, we had called for the original record of the disciplinary proceedings conducted by the respondents. The same have been carefully scrutinized by us.
13. Before proceeding to deal with the challenge to the inquiry proceedings on the ground of procedural violation as well as non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, we may firstly examine the contention of the petitioner with regard to the malafide of respondent No.3 in initiating the disciplinary W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 5 of 12 proceedings. The petitioner has placed before us copy of a document which according to him is the indent related to 20th February, 1993 with regard to the utilization of a vehicle for transporting respondent No.3 to Amritsar and back. Perusal of this document shows that in the dates, there are interpolations and changes. The date appears at three places on this document. So far as figure reflecting the month in the dates is concerned, we find that there is overwriting and the figure „3‟ (indicating the month) has been changed to „2‟ at all three places. It would appear, therefore, that the document originally related to an alleged trip made by the vehicle on 20th March, 1993. In the date, the figure „3‟ stands changed to „2‟ so that the date reads as 20.02.93 i.e. the 20th February, 1993. We also find that the petitioner also admits that all columns in the indent, other than the signature at one place at the bottom of this indent are filled up in his own hand writing.
14. There is yet another circumstance which would show that the document relied upon by the petitioner does not relate to 20th February, 1993. The respondents have stated that no duty of the vehicle in question is reflected in its car diary. It is not disputed that this car diary would have established utilization of the vehicle on 20th February, 1993.
15. The respondents have also urged that the petitioner does not explain as to who filled up and adjusted the duty and the purpose for which the same was adjusted.
W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 6 of 12
16. We also find that the petitioner had made the aforenoted request dated 23rd February, 1993 for transfer which is extracted in the writ petition, the petitioner makes no allegation of any malafide against the respondent No.3. The petitioner does not even remotely suggest any incident dated 20th February, 1993 or state that he was required to drive the vehicle unauthorizedly by the respondent No.3 for the considerable distance of 80 kms. The petitioner has simply requested for transfer from 102 Battalion to 104 or 105 Battalion.
17. The respondents have explained that the petitioner is a resident of the District Aligarh and that the headquarter of 104 Battalion was at Aligarh while the headquarter of 105 Battalion was at Ghaziabad which was also near to Aligarh. It has been submitted that the request dated 23rd February, 1993 was simply a request to be placed nearest to his home town and was not instigated on account of apprehension of any adverse treatment at the hands of any officer.
18. In these circumstances, the photocopy of the indent relied upon by the petitioner cannot be relied upon. We are unable to hold as contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.3 had utilized the vehicle of the petitioner in the manner suggested or that respondent No.3 was nursing a grouse or malafide against the petitioner for such reason.
19. So far as the challenge to the proceedings before the inquiry officer on grounds of procedural violations is concerned, W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 7 of 12 perusal of the record shows that at every stage, the inquiry officer had made efforts to serve the communications upon the petitioner.
20. It appears that the proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the reason that in 1993, the petitioner who was on the strength of 102 Battalion of the force was posted with its detachment in Punjab. It is not disputed that the Headquarter of the 102 Battalion was at Bhubaneswar (Orissa). On 1st April, 1993, the petitioner had refused to perform central duty at the Empty Park Depot at the Headquarters, Theriwal, Punjab for which he was detailed. He is stated to have subsequently drawn a rifle from the ammunition store (Kote), created nuisance and threatened his Guard Commandar and other personnel. Shri V.C. Kala, respondent No.3 was the then Deputy Commandant of the Battalion who rushed to the spot and pacified the petitioner. The petitioner was persuaded to surrender his arms and ammunitions.
21. As a result of this incident, the order dated 2nd April, 1993 was passed by the Commandant of the Battalion where the petitioner was serving placing him under suspension pending the departmental inquiry which was proposed against him. The petitioner makes no grievance or allegation of malafide against the Commandant of the Battalion or the other persons who have given evidence against him in the departmental proceedings.
W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 8 of 12
22. The petitioner has placed before this court the order dated 2nd April, 1993 whereby he was placed under suspension. It has been pointed out that during the duration of suspension, Headquarter of the petitioner was declared as the Headquarter of the 102 Battalion, RAF, CRPF at Bhubaneswar (Orissa). In terms of the order of suspension, the petitioner was required to move to the Headquarter of the Battalion located at Bhubaneswar (Orissa).
23. Perusal of the original record of the disciplinary proceedings shows that the inquiry officer has made efforts to keep the petitioner informed at every stage. The Inquiry Officer has sent notices intimating the proposed date of proceedings; a notice giving an opportunity to the petitioner to submit his defence; intimations of the dates and proceedings in the matter with regard to recording of evidence, forwarding the copies of the record as well as copies of the statements; granting opportunities to make submissions and respond to the material brought on record by the prosecution; opportunity to produce evidence and make his submissions, etc. The inquiry record contains inter alia notices dated 25th May, 1993, 5th January, 1993, 10th September, 1993 and 27th September, 1993 in this regard. The petitioner has refused acceptance of all notices. The refusal is evidenced by endorsement of the person who has attempted to effect service of the notice supported by attestation by three or four personnel of the force W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 9 of 12 who have signed and confirmed that the notices were tendered and that the petitioner refused to accept the same.
24. The petitioner has therefore stubbornly and consistently refused to join the inquiry. Other than the bald plea of denial of opportunity to contest the same, the petitioner has placed no material at all which could substantiate his pleas. He has admittedly moved from Amritsar to Bhubaneswar in terms and stood placed under suspension. For this entire period, the petitioner would have been drawing a subsistence allowance. In this background, the petitioner certainly cannot contend that he was not aware of the proceedings which were being conducted against him.
25. The record of the disciplinary proceedings shows that they have been conducted in accordance with the prescribed procedure and the principles of natural justice have been adhered to and fully complied with. The petitioner has also been given full opportunity to participate and contest the charges.
26. We also do not find even a single representation or complaint to higher authorities who could have intervened had the petitioner‟s suspension been unwarranted or if he was treated unjustly or unfairly. Given the refusal of the petitioner to cooperate in the matter or to appear in the inquiry and his refusal to even accept and acknowledge the notices issued repeatedly to him, in our view, the Inquiry Officer had no option but to proceed in the manner in which he had done so. W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 10 of 12
27. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution who have supported the allegations and the charge. The petitioner refused to cross-examine them. The petitioner does not even remotely suggest that these five witnesses who were his colleagues nurtured any malafide against him. The incident dated 1st of April, 1993 was fully proved in these statements. The petitioner has refused to respond to the charge or to lead any evidence in defence of the charge. In this background, the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and the finding of guilt by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 11th April, 1994 cannot be faulted on any legal tenable ground.
28. We also find that the respondents have compassionately considered the request of the petitioner for leave despite the pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him when he was granted 30 days leave on the unfortunate demise of his wife. The petitioner‟s request for earned leave prior thereto could not be favourably considered for the reason that he was under suspension and was facing disciplinary proceedings. It is regrettable that because of the non-cooperation of the petitioner, despite the order of suspension having been made as back as on 2nd April, 1993, the disciplinary proceedings were protracted to the extent and manner in which they were done so by the petitioner.
W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 11 of 12
For all the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ petition which is hereby dismissed.
There shall be no order as to costs.
GITA MITTAL, J J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 24, 2010 mk W.P.(C)No.3689/1994 Page 12 of 12