Delhi High Court
Sunil Kumar Yadav vs Union Of India & Ors. on 2 December, 2020
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2020 DEL 1658
Author: Asha Menon
Bench: Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, Asha Menon
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 2nd December, 2020
+ W.P.(C) 6226/2020
SUNIL KUMAR YADAV .....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Himanshu Gautam and Lokesh
Sharma, Advocates
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Vikrant N. Goyal, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE ASHA MENON
[VIA VIDEO CONFERENCING]
JUSTICE ASHA MENON
1. The petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India against his dismissal from the Sashastra Seema Bal
(SSB) with the following prayers:
"i. issue a writ of Certiorari quashing and setting
aside the respondents impugned order dated 24.04.2018,
11.09.2018, 20.09.2018 and 25.06.2019 vide which they
have inflicted the penalty of dismissal from service with one
year of rigorous imprisonment on the petitioner;
ii. issue a writ of Mandamus directing the
respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service from the
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 1 of 10
date he has been dismissed from service along with full
consequential benefits;
iii. pass such other order as this court may deem fit
and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present
case."
2. The facts as are relevant for the disposal of the case can be briefly
stated. The petitioner joined the services of the SSB as a Constable on
29th July, 2011 and during the course of his service was last posted with
the 27th Battalion SSB Narkatiaganj and was attached to the Office of the
Area Organiser, Narkatiaganj Area, SSB for official duties.
3. On 25th November, 2014, he claims to have received input from his
source about the smuggling of gold from Muzaffarpur to Delhi in
Saptakranti Express train by certain persons. According to him, he
immediately conveyed this information to his superior officers Sh.
S.K.Sharma, Sub-Area Organiser and Sh.Alok Pandey, Sub-Area
Organiser (SAO). They duly authorised him to proceed to the
Narkatiaganj Railway Station along with CT/GD Satyendra Kumar, to
conduct the operation against the alleged smugglers. It is the case of the
petitioner that he, with much effort, was able to apprehend a smuggler
and the apprehension was duly notified to the superior officers. By this
time, however, the Saptakranti Express had already reached Bagaha
Railway Station which was almost 50 kms away from Narkatiaganj where
the petitioner and Constable Satyendra Kumar, along with the smuggler
de-boarded the train. He also recovered 3 pieces of gold weighing almost
half kg from the smuggler.
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 2 of 10
4. According to the petitioner, pursuant to his information of
apprehension of the smuggler and recovery, the SAOs came to the
Bagaha Railway Station in a government vehicle and all of them
proceeded towards Narkatiaganj. However, he noticed on the way, that
they seemed to have proceeded towards Siswa Bazaar where the vehicle
was parked and Sh.Alok Pandey and Sh.S.K.Sharma seemed to be
waiting for some 3rd person along with the smuggler. Somehow the
smuggler escaped from the custody of the SAOs. Thereupon, the
petitioner was asked to deposit the recovered gold with the nearest SSB
unit at Tuthibari and they themselves hurriedly left the place on account
of the escape of the smuggler, without recording the recovery.
5. The petitioner claims that while he was on his way to the Tuthibari
SSB unit he was intercepted by the local police at the chowk and after
being detained all night, was handed over to the Customs Authorities
because he was unwilling to hand over the seized gold to the local police.
Subsequently, he was penalized by the Customs Authorities with a fine of
₹1 lakh on 29th December, 2015. As the petitioner was also arrested under
the Customs Act on 26th November, 2014, though subsequently let off on
bail on 28th November, 2014, the SSB constituted a Court of Inquiry
(COI) on 28th November, 2014 against the petitioner and the others who
were accused in the matter and where their statements were also recorded.
6. On the basis of the COI, which framed charges against the
petitioner, a General Force Court (GFC) was also convened on 2nd
November, 2017. On 24th April, 2018, on conclusion of the GFC, the
petitioner was found guilty of the two charges framed against him and it
recommended that he be sentenced to undergo two years rigorous
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 3 of 10
imprisonment and be also dismissed from service. A pre-confirmation
petition under Section 169 of SSB Act, 2007 dated 26th April, 2018 was
filed by him before the Additional Director-General, SSB requesting
them to exonerate him. However the Confirming Authority rejected the
petition and confirmed the finding of guilt, but reduced the sentence to
rigorous imprisonment for one year with dismissal from service. The
sentence was promulgated as per Rules on 20th September, 2018
whereafter the petitioner, on 23rd April, 2019 filed the statutory post-
confirmation petition before the DG, SSB, against the finding of guilt and
sentence, which was also dismissed on 25th June, 2019.
7. The two charges against the petitioner were as below:
"a. Under Section 49 SSB Act, 2007 for "committing a
civil offence that is to say being a public servant,
attempting to commit offence mentioned under Section 39
(1) (C) of Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act, thereby
dishonestly misappropriating the property under their
control punishable under section 15 of the PC Act, 1988
read with Section 34 IPC" and
b. Under Section 43 of the SSB Act, 2007 for "an act
prejudicial to good order and discipline of the force".
8. In the present petition, the petitioner has sought the application of
the 'Doctrine of Equality' in his favour. It is claimed by the petitioner that
despite clear evidence coming on record indicating the active and
complete participation of the officers Sh.S.K.Sharma and Sh.Alok
Pandey, SAOs in the incident, charges of commission of offences were
framed against the petitioner, whereas no action was ever initiated against
the two officers and the petitioner has been made the scapegoat for
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 4 of 10
everything. The petitioner claims that he had followed the instructions of
his superiors as per the mandate of Rule 9(5) of the SSB Rules, 2009, for
which he cannot be punished. Several other grounds have also been
urged, such as that: the charge was itself faulty as the power of seizure of
goods and preparation of seizure memo under Section 102 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure vested not in Constables but in police officers not
below the rank of Officer-in-Charge of the police station and therefore
the petitioner cannot be held guilty of not preparing the seizure memo
since he could not have prepared the seizure memo; that the petitioner
had proceeded to the Tuthibari SSB unit to deposit the gold pieces seized
from the smuggler in accordance with the orders of the SAO
Sh.S.K.Sharma, who was his superior officer and therefore, his
apprehension by the local police and the prosecution by the Customs
Authorities was illegal and in violation of Section 132(2)(d) Cr.P.C. as he
was only discharging his duties; and that, after such prosecution, the GFC
was in the face of and against the provisions of Section 87 of the SSB
Act, 2007, which barred a second trial for the same offence. He also
claimed that the punishment imposed was disproportionate to the gravity
of the offence.
9. During arguments however, the learned counsel for the petitioner,
Shri Himanshu Gautam, laid emphasis on equality in treatment and
proportionality of the sentence. It was his contention that though the
SAOs were found to have had a significant role in the entire episode as
was evident from Annexure P-9, being the summing up by the Judge
Attorney, neither of them has been issued any show cause notice nor have
disciplinary proceedings been initiated against them. Rather they have
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 5 of 10
been promoted. It is the contention of the learned counsel that when in the
same incident persons who had great degree of involvement had been let
off without a scratch, there was no justification in holding the petitioner
guilty and imposing such harsh punishment of one year's rigorous
imprisonment and dismissal from service. The petitioner, it may be noted,
has already undergone the sentence. Hence counsel prayed that the
dismissal be set aside.
10. The learned counsel for the respondents Sh.Vikrant N. Goyal,
appearing on advance notice, however submitted that the petitioner was
involved in the incident where he was found to be in possession of three
gold pieces weighing half kilo and had not reported the matter to the
superior officers when he recovered the same from an alleged smuggler.
Further, he was apprehended while he was proceeding with his brother to
his home instead of depositing the recovered gold with the SSB unit or
the police or the Customs, whose offices were all located in the vicinity.
He also failed to report the incident of alleged escape/corruption on the
part of the SAOs to any superior officer immediately after the SAOs had
left, even going by his version that they were seeking illegal gratification
from the smuggler and had allowed him to escape. His actions being so
serious, the punishment was properly imposed on him as such a person
would always be a risk to the Force. With regard to the officers who were
involved in the incident, the counsel for the respondents informed that
they had been proceeded against, but since they were now on deputation
with the IB, the inquiry was being conducted by the IB and would reach
its logical conclusion.
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 6 of 10
11. Having heard both sides and having perused the record, including
the email sent to us by the learned counsel for the respondents of clear
copies of the inquiry proceedings, we find the contentions of the
petitioner to be without force. It may be noted that there has been no
explanation forthcoming of the cause of delay in approaching the court
only on 26th August 2020, after the dismissal of the statutory post-
confirmation petition on 26th June 2019. No questions have been raised
about the conduct of the COI or of any procedural irregularities or
illegalities in the conduct of the trial by the GFC. The assessment of the
factual matrix and evaluation of evidence by the COI and GFC has not
been questioned. Rather, it is on that basis that the petitioner has aired his
grievance of differential treatment.
12. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that sentence must be
proportionate to the role of an accused. The courts have also recognised
the Doctrine of Equality as applying to all who are placed equally, even
among those who are found guilty of having committed offences. In the
case decided by the Supreme Court annexed to the e-paper book as
Annexure P-11, Rajendra Yadav v. State of M.P. and others, (2013) 3
SCC 73, the comparison was between two convicted persons. Here the
facts are different. The COI and GFC have been concluded qua the
petitioner, whereas proceedings are pending against the SAOs. There can
be no parity claimed for and at various stages of disciplinary proceedings.
As per the statement made by learned counsel for the respondents, it is
not as if no action has been initiated against Sh.S.K.Sharma and Sh.Alok
Pandey. What happens to them on conclusion of inquiries against them,
cannot dictate what punishment would be appropriate for the role of the
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 7 of 10
petitioner in the incident. The Doctrine of Equality has no application to
the facts of this case and the plea is rejected. It may also be stated that the
summation by the Judge Attorney is only for the purposes of the GFC and
cannot substitute for the findings recorded after due trial and inquiry. The
reliance of the learned counsel on the summation to seek exoneration of
the petitioner is misplaced.
13. The next question is whether the punishment meted out to the
petitioner is per se disproportionate. The Supreme Court had dealt with
the question of proportionality of punishment in Om Kumar v. Union of
India (2001) 2 SCC 386, Union of India v. G. Ganayutham (1997) 7
SCC 463 and Union of India v. Dwarka Prasad Tiwari (2006) 10 SCC
388. Quoting with approval it's previous decision in Dwarka Prasad
Tiwari (supra), the Supreme Court reiterated that the Court would
interfere with the punishment imposed pursuant to disciplinary
proceedings only if it was so disproportionate that it shocked the
conscience of the court. The observations are reproduced below for ready
reference:
"25. In Dwarka Prasad Tiwari, it has been held that unless
the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the
appellate authority shocks the conscience of the
court/tribunal, there is no scope for interference. When a
member of the disciplined force deviates to such an extent
from the discipline and behaves in an untoward manner
which is not conceived of, it is difficult to hold that the
punishment of dismissal as has been imposed is
disproportionate and shocking to the judicial conscience."
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 8 of 10
14. What is worthy of note in the case at hand are the several
significant admissions made by the petitioner. The petitioner claims that
it was he who had received the information of smuggling of gold by a
passenger travelling by Saptakranti Express. Admittedly, he had gone
along with Constable Satyendra Kumar for the recovery of the gold.
Admittedly, he apprehended the smuggler, took his search and recovered
the 3 pieces of gold from the possession of the smuggler. Subsequently,
he was the one who was found in possession of the very same pieces of
gold by the local police at Tuthibari chowk. The COI and the GFC had
found that the petitioner was on the way to his home and was ahead of
Tuthibari when he was apprehended. That would also indicate that the
petitioner instead of following the instructions of his superiors (as per his
case) to deposit the gold at Tuthibari, had gone further ahead of Tuthibari
with the smuggled gold towards his own village, which casts doubt on the
integrity of the petitioner himself. All these facts were fully and
conclusively established by the witnesses during the COI and GFC.
15. In the background of these facts, the sentence of one year's
rigorous imprisonment and dismissal from service as imposed on the
petitioner do not seem disproportionate at all. Neither does it shock the
conscience of the court as being unjust. The petitioner was a member of a
disciplined Force and responsible for the security of the country,
including economic security. He did not consider it inappropriate to keep
smuggled gold in his possession, about the seizure of which no record
was also prepared. Absolute honesty and integrity is expected of all
government employees and no slip can ever be brooked. Such employees
W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 9 of 10
wanting in integrity cannot but be dismissed as their retention in service
would send wrong signals and would be counter-productive.
16. There is no merit in the present petition which is accordingly
dismissed.
ASHA MENON, J.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J. DECEMBER 02, 2020 manjeet W.P.(C) 6226/2020 Page 10 of 10