Delhi High Court
Sub Inspector (S.I.) Badruddin vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors. on 13 December, 2011
Author: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 13th December, 2011.
+ W.P.(C) No.7070/2011
% SUB INSPECTOR (S.I.) BADRUDDIN .......Appellant
Through: Mr. Shankar Raju, Adv.
Versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr. Shariq Mohammad, Adv.
CORAM :-
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
JUDGMENT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. The petition impugns the order dated 15th July, 2011 of the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi dismissing OA No.1848/2010 under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 preferred by the petitioner. The said OA was preferred impugning the order dated 21st October, 2009 of the Disciplinary Authority imposing punishment of temporary forfeiture of one year's approved service entailing proportionate reduction in pay and the order dated 11 th May, 2010 of the Appellate Authority enhancing the punishment to permanent forfeiture of three years approved service and proportionate reduction of pay.
W.P.(C) No.7070/2011 Page 1 of 52. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had called one Mohd. Shahid, a Kabadiwala and his employee Sh. Banwari Lal to the Police Station in connection with investigation of a theft case (under Section 380 IPC) registered under FIR No.17/2003 and having beaten up the said Mohd. Shahid and released him only after receiving bribe money of `10,000/-.
3. The Inquiry Officer found the aforesaid charge to have been proved and the Disciplinary Authority having agreed with the said findings and after giving opportunity to the petitioner imposed punishment aforesaid. The Appellate Authority, in view of gravity of the misconduct and the need for exemplary punishment, gave notice to petitioner as to why punishment be not enhanced and after hearing the petitioner enhanced the punishment as aforesaid.
4. The contention of the petitioner before the Tribunal was of the Inquiry Officer, Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority having wrongly relied on the version of the complainant Mohd. Shahid not supported by his employee Sh. Banwari Lal; of the Disciplinary Authority & Appellate Authority having placed reliance on statements of witnesses taken at the time of preliminary inquiry and in contravention of Rule 15(3) of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 and of the defence pleas having not been appreciated and it being a case of no evidence.
5. The Tribunal on perusal of the records of the departmental proceedings found the evidence led by the complainant to have been W.P.(C) No.7070/2011 Page 2 of 5 corroborated by the brother-in-law and brother of the complainant who were also examined, though brother of the complainant had subsequently retracted his statement and had pleaded loss of memory. The Tribunal held that it was not to act as an Appellate Authority and was not to assess and appreciate evidence and once it was satisfied that it was not a case of no evidence and there was no perversity, there was no reason to interfere.
6. Notice of this petition was issued and we have with the consent of the counsels heard the matter finally.
7. We have perused the record of the Tribunal placed before us and which includes the record of the departmental proceedings against the petitioner and do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. We are satisfied that there was sufficient material before the departmental authorities even de hors the preliminary inquiry matter to reach the factual conclusion reached by them and no perversity is found in the same.
8. The counsel for the petitioner has also contended that the Inquiry Officer in the present case cross examined the witnesses himself and which was in violation of Rule 16 and vitiated the inquiry proceedings. We have perused the statement of the witnesses as set out in the inquiry report and are unable to fathom any irregularity or violation of any rule therefrom. It cannot be lost sight of that the rules of inquiry proceedings are inquisitorial and not adversarial. A Division Bench of this Court in Om Pal Singh Vs. W.P.(C) No.7070/2011 Page 3 of 5 UOI MANU/DE/1203/2006 held that the purpose of disciplinary inquiry proceeding is to find out the truth and whether or not the misconduct alleged against the delinquent Officer stands proved; in the said proceedings the adjudicatory authority i.e. the Inquiry Officer is empowered to put questions to and cross examine witnesses; that the mere fact that the Inquiry Officer under Rule 15 (The said case also related to Delhi Police and it was the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980 which were under consideration) is required to examine witnesses himself, put questions to the witnesses and cross examine the defence witnesses cannot by any stretch be regarded as violation of Article 311(2) and 14 of the Constitution. From a perusal of the evidence, we are unable to find any irregularity in the Inquiry Officer putting a few questions to the witnesses appearing before him. The Supreme Court as far back as in Workmen Vs. Buckingham & Carnatic Mills (1970) 1 LLJ 26 held that Inquiry Officer in a domestic inquiry can put questions to the witnesses for clarification wherever necessary and the inquiry proceedings cannot be impeached as unfair on this ground. It was so reiterated in Mulchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Vs. The Workmen (1975) 4 SCC 731.
9. The counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the petitioner was not given notice by the Appellate Authority of enhancement of punishment. The counsel for the respondents in this regard has invited our attention to the show cause notice dated 12th March, 2010 issued by the Appellate Authority. The same unequivocally records that the misconduct committed by the W.P.(C) No.7070/2011 Page 4 of 5 petitioner to be gravest in nature and the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority being not commensurate with the gravity of misconduct committed by the petitioner and of the need to award the exemplary punishment on the petitioner since charges of corruption had been proved beyond doubt. The petitioner was accordingly asked to show cause as to why the punishment be not enhanced. The petitioner thus cannot argue that notice of proposal to enhance punishment was not given to him. Merely because the enhanced punishment proposed was not disclosed would not make any difference as the petitioner is not shown to have suffered any prejudice therefrom. The petitioner has been unable to show as to what else he would have represented if had been informed of the proposed enhanced punishment. We, therefore, do not find any merit in the said plea also.
10. We, therefore, do not find any merit in this petition; the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DECEMBER 13, 2011 bs W.P.(C) No.7070/2011 Page 5 of 5