Delhi High Court
Ombir Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi And Ors. on 17 April, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
Bench: Pradeep Nandrajog, V.Kameswar Rao
$~14
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: April 17, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 6233/2012
OMBIR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.Anil Singal, Adv.
versus
GNCT OF DELHI AND ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Sujata Kashyap, Mr.Bakul
Jain, Advs. with Mr.Rishi Raj,
Pervi Officer, Dist.West-in
person.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Regretfully the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for the reason a cryptic finding has been returned; after noting the arguments of the parties. The finding in paras 4 to 6 of the impugned order, which constitutes the entire reasoning of the Tribunal, reads as under:-
"4. We heard both the learned counsel and perused the record on file.
5. We are of the opinion that the stand of the applicant that since the major charge of taking the government vehicle home and of beating up HC Babu Lal were not proved and, W.P.(C) 6233/2012 Page 1 of 3 therefore, the punishment could not have been imposed upon him, is not a valid one. It has been very clearly stated by the respondents that only the charge of misbehaviour with his superior officer has been proved and he has been punished on that ground. There is also no infirmity in the procedure followed by the respondents.
6. No case for intervention in this matter is made out. OA is dismissed as being devoid of merit. No costs".
2. Without commenting upon the evidence led, suffice would it be to state that of the 8 witnesses examined at the enquiry, only 2 HC Kailash Chand, PW-1 and the stated police HC who was assaulted by the petitioner, HC Babu Lal, PW-4 deposed about the origin of the incident.
3. The other persons who were present at the spot namely Constable Mahender PW-3, SI Jagram PW-7 and HC Kishan Chand PW-6, have deposed facts after the fight between the petitioner and HC Babu Lal had flared up, in that, a noise attracted the three to the spot.
4. We would have expected the Tribunal to have analysed testimony of PW-1 vis-a-vis that of HC Babu Lal. We would have expected that the Tribunal to have return a finding as to who provoked the incident and who retaliated. May be, the evidence could suggest a mutual fight. We do not comment further or opine further inasmuch as we are not to evaluate the evidence.
5. Whether or not petitioner brandished his pistol or threatened to use the pistol during the fight also needs to be evaluated for the reason this fact has heavily weighed in the mind when penalty was imposed by the disciplinary authority.
W.P.(C) 6233/2012 Page 2 of 36. We only highlight that the Tribunal is the first forum where facts need to be noted with clarity and such submissions which are made with reference to the evidence led at enquiry to be dilated and commented upon.
7. We set aside the impugned decision dated November 22, 2011 dismissing the OA No.1669/2011. The said original application is restored for adjudication on merits afresh. All contentions urged by the petitioner in the original application shall be noted and dealt with. The Tribunal will give its opinion on the quality of the evidence and such findings which can be sustained on the evidence, keeping in view the standard of proof at a domestic enquiry.
8. Parties shall appear before the Registrar, Central Administrative Tribunal on May 13, 2013 who shall list the original application before the Roster Bench.
9. No costs.
10. Dasti.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE (V.KAMESWAR RAO) JUDGE APRIL 17, 2013 mm W.P.(C) 6233/2012 Page 3 of 3