Central Administrative Tribunal - Chandigarh
Manish Kumar vs Chandigarh Police, Ut on 4 October, 2017
yas) 8
{ 0.A.Nos.60/00017/ 2016 & 60/00426/ 2016) L
( Manish Kumar & Rajbir Singh vs. UOT & Ors. }
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CHANDIGARH BENCH
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. SANJEEV KAUSHIK, MEMBER (3).
| HON'BLE MR. UDAY KUMAR VARMA, MEMBER (A).
I. O.A. Na.60/00017/2016 Date of Decision: 4440-2017.
Manish Kumar, Constable No.3880, aged 26 years, S/P Sh. Rajbir
Singh, Police Fost, Sector 22 under Police Station, Central,
Chancigarh.
aw APPLICANT
VERSUS
1. Union Territary, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh through
Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, UT Secretariat,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
2. Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh Police
Headquarters, sector-9, Chandigarh.
3. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh
Police Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
4, Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh Police
Headquarters, Sector-9, Chandigarh.
Fi
tut
nmspector Ajay Kumar, Enquiry Officer, presently working in
Security Wing, UT Police, Traffic Lines, Sector-26, Chandigarh.
«» RESPONDENTS
PRESENT; Sh. R.K.Sharma, counsel for the applicant.
Sh. Rajesh Punj, counsel for the respondents.
Ti. ©. A. No.60/00426/ 2016
Constable Rajbir Singh, aged 48 years, son of Shri Jile Singh,
No.2553/CP posted in Police Lines, Chandigarh Police, Sector 26,
Chandigarh.
« APPLICANT
VERSUS
( C.A.Nos.060/001 7/2016 & 060/0426/2016 ) 2
(Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UGL& Ors.)
a
i
1. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh througl
Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration, UT Secretariat,
Sector-9, Chandigarh.
2. Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Deputy Inspector General of Police, Union Territary, Chandigarh.
Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh.
Inspector Ajay Kumar, Enquiry Officer, presently working in
Security Wing, UT Police, Traffic Lines, Sector-26, Chandigarh.
«. RESPONDENTS
oT B ti
PRESENT: Sh. Anil Kumar Bhardwaj, counsel for the applicant.
Sh, Rakesh Verma, counsel for the respondents.
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Member (J):
This order shall dispose of above mentioned two OAs as noint of law involved in both the cases is common in nature. For convenience, facts are taken from the case of Constable Rajbir Singh versus U.T. Chandigarh (0.A.No.060/00426/2016).
2. Applicant has challenged the show cause notice dated 20.3.2015 ( Annexure A-1), order dated 29.4.2015 ( Annexure A-2 } passed by the disciplinary authority by inflicting punishment of forfeiture of five years of approved service for increment purpose with perrnanent effect, order dated 8.7.2015 ( Annexure A-3) in appeal and the revision order dated 23.9.2015 (Annexure A-4 ) whereby the revision filed by the applicant has also been dismissed.
3. Facts which are borne out of the pleadings are that the applicant Rajbir Singh is working as constable with the Chandigarh police and having Constable No.2553/CP. He was placed under { € O.A.Nos.060/0017/2616 & 060/0426/2016 )} 3 (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UOT & Ors.) suspension by order dated 14.6.2013 with a mention that he will remain posted in Police Lines, Sector 26, and his services would be governed under Rule 16.21 of the Punjab Police Rules. As per the ease set up by the respondents for launching departmental proceeding against the applicant and Constable Manish Kumar {applicant in ©0.A,.No.060/00017/2016) are that a wireless message was received that the applicant and constable Manish Kumar are guarrelling with each other. Immediately SI Raghhbir Singh reached at the spot and has recorded staternent of both the constables. They were also got medically examined from GMSH, Sector-16 Chandigarh, where the Dactor has opined that the applicant has not consumed liquor but breath smell of alcohol. Even blood and urine samples were taken and given to Constable Manwinder Singh, for examination. SI Raghbir Singh "had also made special report to respondent no.4 wha ordered a régular departmental enquiry of the incident. As a result thereof, a summary of allegations was served to the applicant and also to Manish Kumar by the Inquiry Officer namely Shri Ajay Kumar, Inspector vide letter dated 9.10.2013. While submitting reply by both the applicants in the above named OA's, they have denied the charges levelled against them and have submitted that there was only a dispute of talking in loud voice and there was no quarrel as projected. It is the case of the applicant that Inquiry Officer without recording any independent reason and without verifying the fact issued a formal charge dated 19.9.2014 to which the applicant submitted his reply on 10.10.2014. The applicant has submitted that without conducting a fair enquiry, without affording Aim an opportunity, the Inquiry Officer held the applicant guilty of the charges. He was issued a show cause notice on 20,3,.2015 proposing es saeean ( 0.A4.Nos.060401 7/2016 & 060/0426/2016 3} 4 (Manish Kamar and Rajbir Singh vs. VOL& Grs,) the punishment of forfeiture of five years of approved service for increment purpose with permanent effect. The applicant submitted his detailed reply by reiterating what he had submitted in reply to memo. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.4.2015 (Annexure A-2) while accepting the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer that the applicant was under the influence of liquor had inflicted the punishment of forfeiture of five years of approved service for increment purpose with permanent effect in case of Rajbir Singh and forfeiture of two years of approved service for increment purpose with permanent effect in case of Constable Munish Kumar.
4, Aggrieved against. the order dated 29.4.2015 ( Annexure A-2 }, the applicant filed an appeal which was also dismissed vide order dated 8.7.2015 ( Annexure A-3 ) and the revision petition against the. appellate érder was also dismissed vide order dated 23/24.9.2015. Even thereafter, the applicant stated to have filed mercy petition which was also rejected vide order dated 13.10.2015 on the ground that there was no further statutory provision under the Punjab Police Rules. Hence the present OA.
5. The respondents while resisting the claim of the applicant have filed detailed written statement, wherein they have submitted that after receiving wireless message, Inspector Raghbir Singh reached at the place of occurrence where the applicant as well as Manish Kumar were guarrelling with each other. They were got medically examined and as per report given by the Doctor of GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh as well as the report of Ajay Kumar, ASI, a regular departmental enquiry under PPR 16.24 was ordered vide { O.A.Nos. 060/001 7/2016 & 060/0426/2016 } 5 (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UOD& Ors.) order dated 22.8.2013 due to exchange of hot wards between the applicant and Manish Kumar which has tarnished the image of the Police. It is also recorded therein that Constable Manish Kumar also hit the applicant on his left eye. In the departmental enquiry, the applicant was found guilty and the Disciplinary Authority had issued the shaw cause notice dated 20.3.2015 for proposing the punishment of forfeiture of five years of approved service for increments purpose with permanent effect. The applicant submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 29.4.2015 had awarded punishment of forfeiture of five years approved service for Increment purpose with permanent effect. They have further stated that the appeal as well as the revision petition filed by the applicant was also dismissed by upholding the view expressed by the disciplinary authority.
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and nave perused the material placed on record.
7. Learned counsel for the applicant vehemently arqued that the impugned orders are liable to be set aside having been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. He has further urged that the Disciplinary Authority while accepting the enquiry report by inflicting the punishment have not adhered to the rule formula as the applicant was neither provided the copy of enquiry report nor was given an oppertunity of hearing, as such, the impugned orders be set aside having being passed in violation of principles of natural justice. To support his contention, he placed reliance on a judgment passed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case ( 0.4.Nos.060/0017/2016 & 060/0426/2016 ) 6 (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UOI & Ors.) of H.P.State Electricity Board Limited versus Mahesh Dahiya ( 2017 (1) S.C.C, Page 768).
8, Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer and has submitted that the proper procedure as envisaged in the Punjab Police Rules has been followed. It is urged that at each stage, the applicants were given an opportunity to stake their claim before arriving at a particular conclusion. Even they were afforded an opportunity by the Disciplinary Authority before imposition of penalty. He also argued that since the. applicant's failed to point out any ilegality or procedural lapse in, conducting enguiry, therefore, the present OA's may be dismissed as this Court cannot sit as appellate authority over the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority.
9. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter and perused the pleadings available on record with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties.
10. A conjunctive perusal of the pleadings makes it clear that after receiving a wireless message, SI Raghbir Singh reached at the spot. A DDR was registered against the applicant as well as Constable Manish Kumar. They were medically examined from the GMSH, Sector 16, Chandigarh, where though as per Doctor the applicant was shown not under the influence of liquor but breath smells of aicohol, Thereafter, a special report was called from Inspector Ajay Kumar. It was after his report, the competent authority decided to hold regular enquiry in which the apolicant's had { oJ ( O.A.Nos.O60/4017/2016 & 060/0426/2018 ) (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UQI& Qrs.} participated at each stage. After considering their reply to the charge sheet and enquiry report, the Disciplinary Authority issued shaw cause motice to the applicants for punishment and has called for their reply before passing the arder of punishment. After receiving the reply, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order of punishment of forfeiture of five years service for increment purpose with permanent effect. Both the applicants have failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in the procedure adopted by the respondents in coming to the final conclusion.
it. A number of Apex Court's judgments define the scope of interference of Tribunals in the matter of disciplinary proceedings like the one in this case. It has been held that the intervention should come about in such cases where there has been gross violation of laid down procedure or where the. principles of natural justice have seriously been compromised. The principle that needs to be observed while looking at the justification of punishment is whether the imposed punishment shocks the conscience and whether it is grossly disproportionate to the gravity of charges levelled against the government employee.
Recently, the Hon'ble Apex Court In the case of Union of India versus P.Gunasekaran (2015 (2) S.C.C. Page 610) in paras 12, 13 & 20 has held as follaws :-
"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, re- appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into -- re-
ee enemy z ( O.A.Nos.060/001 7/2016 & B60/0426/2016 } g (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UOE& Ors.) appreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:
a. the enquiry is held by a competent authority; b. the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;
c. there Is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;
d. the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case; e. the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations; f, the conclusion, on the very face of ft, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion; g. the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the adrnissible and materia! evidence; h. the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible. evidence which influenced the finding; =: ) |. the finding of. fact is. based on no evidence.
13. "Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:
(). re-appreciate the evidence;
(i). interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law;
Gis go into the adequacy of the evidence;
(iv). go into the reliability of the evidence;
(v). interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.
(vi). correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;
(vil), go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience.
XX xX XX
19. The disciplinary autharity, on scanning the inquiry report and having accepted it, after discussing the available and admissible evidence on the charge, and the Central Administrative Tribunal having endorsed the view of the disclotinary authority, if was not at all open to the High Court to re- appreciate the evidence in exercise of L { ( G.A.Nos.060/0017/2016 & 060/6426/2016 } 9 (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UOT& Ors) its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
20. Equally, it was not open to the High Court, in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, to go into the proportionality of punishment so jong as the punishment does not shock the conscience of the court. In the instant case, the disciplinary authority has come to the conclusion that the respondent lacked integrity. No doubt, there are no measurable standards as to what is integrity in service jurisprudence but certainly there are indicators for such assessment. Integrity according to Oxford dictionary is "moral uprightness; honesty". It takes in its sweep, probity, innocence, trustfulness, openness, sincerity, dDlamelessness, immaculacy, rectitude, uprightness, virtuousness, righteousness, goodness, cleanness, decency, honour, reputation, nobility, irreproachability, purity, respectability, genuineness, moral excellence etc, In short, it depicts sterling character with firm adherence to a cade of moral values,"
The guidelines enunciated in the judgment above are relevant and useful for adjudication of departmental proceedings by the Tribunais and High Courts. ff we consider the guidelines iaid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of P.Gunasekaran { supra), we cannot fall but conclude that the instant case does not merit any interference by us as no aspect of this case qualifies for an intervention by the Tribunals. In the instant case, the enquiry had been conducted by following due process of law, there are no procedural lapses or irregularity and the principles of natural justice are not violated in any manner. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the applicant will give no assistance to the applicant because in the present case, the principle of natural justice was complied with as the applicant was given opportunity to file reply to the charges, but he was also associated in proceedings, which ultimately culminated in the order of punishment. But in the case of Mahesh Dahiya ( supra), the Court find that there was violation of principles of natural justice, penne { O.A.Nos.060/001 7/2016 & 060/0426/2016 ) 10 (Manish Kumar and Rajbir Singh vs. UOL& Ors.) thus, the impugned order therein was set aside having been passed contrary to the principles of natural justice as the applicant was not given fair opportunity in the departmental proceedings.
12. As regards the quantum of punishment, the disciplinary authority had imposed the punishment of "forfeiture of five years of approved service for increment purpose with permanent effect" in case of Rajbir Singh and "forfeiture of two years of approved service for increment purpose with permanent effect'. Both the applicants belong to a very sensitive department tasked with collection "ahd collation of intelligence that has deep implications for law and order of the State as also national security. An act of indiscipline in such farces ought to be taken with utmost seriousness and must be dealt with accordingly. The punishment imposed is neither so extreme that it shocks our conscience nor can it be deemed disproportionate to the misconduct | committed by the applicant. Therefore, we do not consider it 'necessary. to intervene as far as the quantum of punishment is concerned.
13. In view of the above discussion, we do not find any reason to interfere in the impugned orders, Accordingly, both these OAs are dismissed. Litigating parties to bear their own costs.
(SANJEEV KAUSHIK) MEMBER (J) (UDAY KUMAR VARMA) MEMBER (A) Dated:- October 4 , 2017.
KkS SUGRIS Shes ¢ : :
, saya f CRA yaks RO AYE age <a ie Tee ° *