Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Of India vs Narendra Dutt Rai on 15 July, 2019
Bench: Rohinton Fali Nariman, Surya Kant
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 OF 2019
(Arising out of SLP (C) No. 31448 of 2018)
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
NARENDRA DUTT RAI & ANR. Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Respondent No.1 before us had three charges arraigned against him. Charge I, being over-drunkenness; charge II, abusing his immediate superiors and; charge III being that he had been earlier penalised as many as thirteen times in the past. Since all the aforesaid charges were made out, he was dismissed from being a Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) constable, on 29.05.2006. This dismissal was challenged by him in the Calcutta High Court.
The learned Single Judge, by a detailed judgment dated 29.09.2016, held that as many as 10 witnesses were examined by the prosecution, and that the respondent led no evidence Signature Not Verified himself.
Digitally signed by R
After going through the Disciplinary Authority’s NATARAJAN Date: 2019.07.20 11:22:39 IST Reason:
order, and after stating that though allowed to cross- 1 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 OF 2019 examine all the witnesses, the respondent chose to cross- examine only one such witness, the learned Single Judge held that the Disciplinary Authority’s order, in which the three charges were said to have been proved, was correct, and consequentially, the dismissal from the service, therefore, could not be interfered with under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondent.
However, the Division Bench, for reasons stated, has found that charge I and charge III could not be said to have been proved. However, so far as charge II is concerned, which involved abuse of his immediate senior, the Division Bench stated that this charge at least stood proved for which the appellant would award some minor punishment. As a result, the Division Bench ordered that respondent No.1 be reinstated with 50 per cent back wages.
We have heard Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Union of India, and Mr. Zoheb Hussain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent.
Going by the Division Bench judgment, even if we discount charges I and III against the respondent, charge II, which is a very serious charge, has not been interfered with by the Division Bench. The learned Single Judge has set out in some detail as to how this charge was held to 2 CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 OF 2019 have been made out as follows: -
“20. With regard to the second charge framed against the petitioner, after analysing the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the prosecution witnesses in paragraph 11 of the said order dated May 28, 2006 the disciplinary authority held as follows: “11. With regard to article of charge II, it appears that PW-1 (Inspector/Exe Rahatu Lal), PW-2 (SI/Exe S. Sarvanan), PW-4 (ASI/Exe. V. K. Thakur), PW-5 (HC/GD B.T Ghosh) and PW-6 (HC/GD B.M Nanjappa) have corrobrated in their statements that when the charged official was taking to HPC hospital for medical examination, he misbehaved with Inspector/Exe Rahatu Lal, (PW-1) by using impolite and filthy language and also threatened him for life consequences by saying that “RAHATU LAL, AGAR MERI NOKARI KO NUKSAN HUA TO MAIN AAPKO CHODOONGA NAHIN, GOLI MAR DOONGA” (I will kill you if my service will be no more). I also find that PW-1 and PW-5 have corroborated in their statements that on reaching hospital, when charged official was taken to the doctor, charged official denied to undertake his medical examination and again misbehaved with Inspector / Exe Rahatu Lal, (PW-1) and threatened him by touching his body saying that “OYE RAHATU LAL, AGAR MERA MEDICAL KARAOGE OUR MERI NOKARI KO KUCH HO GAYA TO MAIN TUMHE GOLI MAR DOONGA”. (I will kill you if my medical examination will be undertaken and my service will be no more).
…………………………………………………………………………………… ………………………………………………………………………………….” Given the serious nature of this charge, which has been held to be proved, and the kind of language used by the respondent, it is clear that the respondent must be dismissed from the CISF. No Force can be run if Constables such as this are allowed to abuse their seniors, threatening them with dire consequences in the circumstances mentioned above.3
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 OF 2019 As a result, we set aside the impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court and reinstate that of the Single Judge of the High Court.
The appeal is allowed in the aforesaid terms.
………………………………………………………., J.
[ ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN ] ………………………………………………………., J.
[ SURYA KANT ] New Delhi;
July 15, 2019.4
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5525 OF 2019 ITEM NO.36 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 31448/2018 (Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 22-06-2018 in MAT No. 2038/2016 passed by the High Court at Calcutta) UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Petitioner(s) VERSUS NARENDRA DUTT RAI & ANR. Respondent(s) (DELETED FROM 4.7.2019 AND REALLOCATED IA No. 181811/2018 - STAY APPLICATION) IA 181811/2018, in Date : 15-07-2019 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT For Petitioner(s) Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG.
Mr. S. S. Ray, Adv.
Mr. Venkatesh, Adv.
Mr. M. P. Gupta, Adv.
Mr. Somesh Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. B. V. Balaram Das, AOR For Respondent(s) Mr. Zoheb Hossain, AOR UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R Leave granted.
The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed order.
(NIDHI AHUJA) (RENU DIWAN)
COURT MASTER (SH) ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
[Signed order is placed on the file.] 5