Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Mahender Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 23 July, 2016
1 OA No.1152/2013
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH
O.A. No.1152/2013
New Delhi this the 23rd day of July, 2016
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR, MEMBER (J)
HON'BLE MR. V.N. GAUR, MEMBER (A)
Ex. Ct. Mahender Singh
No.2871/DAP
PIS No.28931502
S/o Shri Jagmal Singh
R/o V&PO Palra, District Gurgaon
Haryana. ...Applicant
(Argued by: Mr. U. Srivastava, Advocate)
Versus
GNCT of Delhi Through
1. The Chief Secretary,
Govt. of NCT of Delhi,
Old Secretariat,
New Delhi.
2. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Head Quarters, I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
3. The Special Commissioner of Police,
Armed Police,
Delhi.
3. The Deputy Commissioner of Police
3rd Bn, DAP, Vikas Puri,
New Delhi. ....Respondents
(By Advocate : Mr. N.K. Singh for Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat)
ORDER (ORAL)
Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J) The challenge in this Original Application (OA), filed by the applicant, Ct. Mahender Singh, is to the impugned enquiry report dated 18.10.2011, conveyed to the applicant 2 OA No.1152/2013 vide Memo dated 20.10.2011 (Annexure A-1) and order dated 18.11.2011 (Annexure A-2) by virtue of which, a penalty of dismissal from service was awarded to the applicant by the Disciplinary Authority (DA). He has also assailed the impugned order dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure A-3), by means of which his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (AA) as well.
2. The contour of the facts and material, relevant for deciding the instant OA, and emanating from the record is that, applicant while, working as Ct. in Delhi Police, remained absent wilfully & unauthorizedly and thus was stated to have committed grave misconduct, during the course of his employment.
3. As a consequence thereof, after following the due procedure of enquiry as contained in Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as "D.P. Rules"), he was served with the following summary of allegation dated 23.03.2011 (Annexure A-4):-
"It is alleged against you Ct. Mahender Singh No. 1543/SW (PIS No.28931502) that while posted in Distt. Lines/ South West Distt. Sec. 9, Dwarka, New Delhi, you were detailed to perform PSO duty with P.P. Dr. Samunder Singh R/o Bijwasan on 06.08.08, but you did not report for duty. You were accordingly marked absent vide DD No. 18 dated 06.08.08, Distt. Lines/SW. You resumed your duty vide DD No. 18 dated 22.10.08 after absenting yourself for a period of 77 days 8 hours and 15 minutes wilfully and unauthorizedly.
During the period of absence two absentee notices were issued to you at your permanent residential address through SIP Branch/SWD with the direction to join you duty at once, otherwise departmental action will be taken against you. But you did not join your duty due to the reason best known to you. You also did not give any information whatsoever, during your absence period.
Again you were marked absent vide DD No. 7 dated 31.10.08 and you resumed your duty vide DD No. 26 dated 15.06.09 after absenting yourself for a period of 7 months, 15 days and 7 hours 3 OA No.1152/2013 wilfully and unauthorisedly. You were also marked absent vide DD No. 26 dated 13.08.09 and resumed your duty vide DD No. 27 dated 30.11.09 after absenting yourself for a period of 109 days and 35 minutes.
This is utter violation of Rule 19.5 of C.C.S. (Leave) Rule 1972 and S.O. No. 111/08 of Delhi Police. Your record also shows that you are habitual absentee and you did not mend yourself and absented yourself wilfully and unauthorizedly.
The above act on the part of you Ct. Mahender Singh No. 1543/SW (PIS No. 28931502) amount to gross misconduct under CCS (Conduct)Rules, 1964 which renders you liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980."
4. Although applicant denied the charges, however, the regular Departmental Enquiry (DE) was initiated against him as per the provisions of D.P. Rules. In pursuance thereof, the EO concluded that the charges framed against the applicant stand fully proved, beyond any doubt vide impugned enquiry report dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure A-1) and, which, in substance, is as under:-
"The charge was served upon Ct. Mahender Singh No. 1543/SE(Now 2871/DAP) PIS No. 28931502 on 08.08.11 free of cost. Contents of the charge were also explained to him in Hindi and he was directed to submit a list of DWs in his defence and get them examined. He refused to produce any defence witness. He was directed to submit his defence statement within 10 days. The delinquent Ct. Mahender Singh No. 1543/SW(Now 2871/DAP) PIS No. 289315 is still running absent and he was telephonically directed on several occasion to submit his defence statement, but he failed to do so. On 04.10.11 a notice was also sent to him through Const. Surat Singh No. 2176/DAP to submit his defence statement by 05.10.11. This notice was duly received by delinquent Ct. Mahender Singh No.1543/SW(Now 2871/DAP) PIS No.28931502 on 05.10.11 morning, but he did not turn up to submit his defence statement. Again on 09.10.11 a notice was sent to delinquent Ct. Mahender Singh No.2871/DAP through Const. Surat Singh No. 2176/DAP at his residence, but he did not receive the notice and he gave in writing that he do not(sic) want to submit his defence statement. In these circumstances no alternative is left except submitting findings.
Analysis of evidence on record From the DD entries and evidence on record it is crystal clear that delinquent Ct. Mahender Singh No.2871/DAP absented himself from duty on three different occasions wilfully and unauthorizedly. On the first occasion he absented himself for 77 days, 8 hours and 15 minutes (06.8.08 to 22.10.08). Second time he remained absent 4 OA No.1152/2013 from duty for 7 months, 15 days and 7 hours (31.10.08 to 15.06.09). On third occasion he absented himself from duty for 109 days and 35 minutes (13.8.09 to 30.11.09). During such long absence periods he never bothered to send any intimation to the department. One absentee notice was also duly served upon him on
05.09.09 through Constable Lal Chand No.881/SW. There was clear direction in the absentee notice to delinquent Ct. Mahender Singh No. 2871/DAP to report to medical superintendent of civil line hospital for medical examination in case of illness. At the time of resuming duty in the first absent mentioned above (06.08.08 to 22.10.08) he gave an application stating therein that he first suffered from fever for a long period and after that from jaundice for which he took medicines from private Doctor. During this absence period above mentioned absentee notice was received by him on 05.09.09, but he failed to report to medical superintendent of civil hospital. In case of illness he could have also send intimation to the department through any family member or through post office, but he never sent any such intimation. Such long absence period can only be termed as deliberate and intentional absence. I have gone through the entire DE file and considered statement of PWs. In spite of service of absentee notices he did not resume his duty and also failed to report to the Medical Superintendent for his medical examinations. His previous absentee record shows that he had absented himself on 29 occasions prior to the absence mentioned in this DE. Obviously he is an (sic) incorrigible type of person and has not mended himself as he is still running absent. In the light of above facts and charge against delinquent Ct. Mahender Singh No.2871/DAP stands proved."
5. Concurring with the findings of the EO, the DA imposed the indicated punishment to the applicant (Annexure A-2). Sequelly, the appeal filed by him was dismissed by the order of the AA (Annexure A-3) as well.
6. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA, challenging the impugned enquiry report and orders, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, mainly on the following grounds:-
"5.4 Because it reveals from face of records that after examining four PWs and the document though the charges were prepared but it is vague in the nature and not definite charges have been prepared and levelled against the applicant as it has been recorded that the records show that the applicant is habitual absentee and did not mend his ways and absented himself wilfully and unauthorizedly but neither any details have been shown nor any documents relating to the alleged absence were produced.5 OA No.1152/2013
5.5. Because it is apparent from the inquiry report that the inquiry officer held the inquiry proceedings for the charges that the applicant was marked absent vide DD No. 18 dt. 06.08.08 and resumed his duties vide DD No. 18 dt. 22.10.08 after absenting himself for a period of 77 days 8 hours and 15 minutes vide DD No. 7 dt. 31.10.08 and resume on duty vide DD No. 26 dt. 15.06.09 after absenting himself for a period of 7 months 15 days and 7 hours, the applicant was also marked absent vide DD. No. 26 dt. 13.08.09 and resumed on duty vide DD No. 27 dt. 30.11.09 after absenting himself for a period of 109 days and 35 minutes and apart from that though it was also alleged that the records show that the applicant is habitual absentee and did not mend himself and absented wilfully and unauthorizedly but without any details or corroborating evidence whereas it reveals from the face of record that though there was nothing to establish against the applicant but despite that and without any inquiry, the inquiry officer proved the extraneous charges with the findings that his previous absentee records show that the he has absented himself on 29 occasions prior to the absence mentioned in the DE with the further conclusion that obviously the applicant is incorrigible type of person.
5.6. Because it is a case of no evidence as the inquiry officer is biased against the applicant as it reveals from the entire proceedings that none of the witnesses were examined to prove the previous absentee and despite that the inquiry officer have proved that the applicant absented himself on 29 occasions prior to the absentee notice.
5.7. Because it reveals from the orders namely the findings of the inquiry officer who has proved that the applicant previously absented himself on 29 occasions prior to the absentee notice in the DE and the orders issued by the Disciplinary Authority vide its dt. 18.11.12 awarding the extreme penalty of dismissal to the applicant without application of their mind totally relying on the perverse findings submitted by the inquiry officer and therefore the entire inquiry proceedings is vitiated, illegal, unjust, arbitrary, malafide, unconstitutional and against the principles of natural justice as the inquiry officer as well as the Disciplinary Authority has taken the previous records of the applicant for coming to the conclusion and awarding the extreme punishment of dismissal from services to the applicant.
5.8. Because awarding a severe punishment to the applicant by taking into consideration his previous bad records which was not forming a definite charge against the applicant is in violation of Rule 16 (XI) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980."
7. According to the applicant, the impugned orders are illegal, arbitrary, without jurisdiction and against the principles of natural justice. Moreover, the DA vide order (Annexure A-2), has inflicted the extreme penalty of removal from service by overlooking his previous record of service, which too was upheld by the AA (Annexure A-3) without any grounds. On the basis of aforesaid grounds, the applicant 6 OA No.1152/2013 has sought quashing of the enquiry report as well as the impugned orders, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
8. The contesting respondents refuted the claim of the applicant and filed their reply wherein, it was pleaded that the DE was initiated against the applicant vide order dated 30.12.2009 by the competent authority under the D.P. Rules, for pointed misconduct of the applicant. It was pleaded that the applicant remained wilfully absent for 77 days, 8 hours & 15 minutes, 7 months, 15 days & 7 hours and 109 days & 35 minutes. During the absence period, absentee notices were issued to him with the direction to join the duty at once, but in vain. Even he did not give any information whatsoever during his absence period. The misconduct of the applicant was stated to be in utter violation of Rule 19.5 of CCS (Leave) Rules and SO No.111 of D.P. Rules. He is a habitual absentee and did not mend himself.
9. According to the respondents, the EO has recorded the statements of prosecution witnesses, completed the enquiry in accordance with law and came to the definite conclusion that the charges framed against the applicant stand fully proved. Thereafter the DA awarded the penalty of removal from service, which too was rightly upheld by the AA.
10. Virtually reiterating the validity of the impugned Enquiry Officer's report and orders, it was claimed by the respondents that the applicant was guilty of grave misconduct and was accordingly removed from service. It was pleaded that 7 OA No.1152/2013 the impugned orders are legal, were passed after due application of mind and following due procedure. It will not be out of place to mention here that the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations contained in the O.A. and prayed for its dismissal.
11. Controverting the allegations of the reply filed by the respondents and reiterating the grounds contained in the OA, the applicant filed the rejoinder. That is how we are seized of the matter.
12. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties at quite some length, after going through the record with their valuable help, we are of the firm view that there is no merit, and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed for the reasons mentioned herienbelow.
13. Ex-facie, the arguments of learned counsel that there was no evidence of wilful absence, as applicant was ill and since the DA has based its decision considering the irrelevant material and his previous absence, so the impugned orders are liable to be set aside, are neither tenable nor the observations of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. & Others Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar (2009) 12 SCC 78, relied upon by the applicant, are at all applicable, wherein the Government employee was served a charge sheet containing 6 (six) charges, including the charge of corruption of demand of commission of 1% of pay and allowances of the employees. On the peculiar facts and in the special circumstances of that 8 OA No.1152/2013 case, it was observed that such a serious charge of corruption requires to be proved to the hilt, as it brings civil and criminal consequences upon the employee concerned and no non- existing material could be relied upon to prove such serious charge.
14. Similarly, in the case of Delhi Administration and Another Vs. Constable Yasin Khan 86 (2000) DLT 144 (DB), it was observed by Hon'ble Delhi High Court that in case Government employee has been held guilty by the EO, it would be open to the DA to award penalty commensurate with the misconduct.
15. Possibly, no one can dispute with regard to the aforesaid observations, but same would not come to the rescue of the applicant in the present controversy for the following reasons.
16. As is evident from the record, that the applicant remained absent for 77 days, 8 hours & 15 minutes, 7 months, 15 days & 7 hours and 109 days & 35 minutes. The department, in order to substantiate the charges framed against the accused, examined PW-1, ASI Shri Dharmbir Singh, who has duly proved the entries in the DDs with regard to absent and absentee notices issued to the applicant. PW-2, HC Anoop Singh has produced absentee record of the applicant, PW-3, Ct. Lal Chand & PW-4, HC Pramod, have also proved the service of absentee notices to the applicant. The applicant did not cross-examine them despite 9 OA No.1152/2013 opportunities, for the reasons best known to him. Not only that, he has not made his defence statement, but at the same time he has also refused to produce any defence witness, despite adequate opportunity. That means, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, remains unrebutted and unchallenged. In this backdrop, the EO has rightly concluded that the charges levelled against the applicant stand proved.
17. Agreeing with the findings of the EO, considering the material on record and after following the due procedure, the indicated penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the applicant, vide impugned order dated 18.10.2011 (Annexure A-2) by the DA. The operative part of the order reads as under:-
"I have carefully gone through the documentary evidence available on file as well the findings of EO. The EO has proved the charges. The attitude of defaulter clearly indicates that he is deliberately not coming to appear in O.R., has nothing to say in his defence and does not want to serve the department. The charges of unauthorized absence i.e. from (1) 06.08.08 to 22.10.08 (2) 31.10.08 to 15.06.09 & (3) 13.08.09 to 30.11.09 has already been proved in the D.E. Besides, he has absented himself on 29 different occasions earlier and still is running absent since 11.01.11 without any intimation to the department. From this fact and circumstances of the case, it is clear the defaulter Constable is a habitual absentee and has not mend himself despite being given sufficient opportunities. Absence from duty for such a long (sic) period without any intimation is a serious misconduct and unbecoming of member of disciplined force. This is also a blatant violation of provision laid down in CCS (Leave) Rule 1972 and SO No. 111 of Delhi Police. Due to his constant and long unauthorized absence, he cannot be trusted in police force as his availability in the emergent situations will always remain in question. The presence of such incorrigible personnel is not desirable in the disciplined force like Delhi Police as he want to perform duty at his own(sic) sweet will. He is found completely unfit to be retained in service. Therefore, I Parwaiz Ahmed, Deputy Commissioner of Police, III Bn, DAP, Delhi do hereby order to dismiss Ct. Mahender Singh No. 1543/SW (Now 2871/DAP) from(sic) service with immediate effect. His above said absence period is also decided as period "not spent on duty" for all intent and purposes which may not be regularized in any manner."10 OA No.1152/2013
18. Sequelly, the applicant has filed the grounds of appeal dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure A-5), wherein he has admitted that he received the notice from the Department to be present in front of the DE. Sometime, he attended the enquiry and sometime, he failed to attend, which is not good on his part. That means, he has not taken any ground in the appeal to challenge the impugned order of DA. After considering all the issues raised by the applicant, the appeal filed by him was dismissed by speaking order dated 01.03.2012 (Annexure A-
3).
19. Faced with the situation, the learned counsel for the applicant then urged, that the impugned punishment order of DA is based on his previous conduct/absence, which is illegal. We are afraid, that we cannot accept this argument.
20. A bare perusal of the record would reveal that the applicant was served with a clear and specific charge for wilful and unauthorized absence for 77 days, 8 hours & 15 minutes, 7 months, 15 days & 7 hours and 109 days & 35 minutes. It has only been mentioned in the charge sheet, that record of the applicant also shows, that he is a habitual absentee and did not mend himself. It has also been so mentioned in the order of the DA, that he has absented himself on 29 different occasions and still is running absent since 11.01.2011, without any intimation to the Department. The mere mentioning of the fact of his previous absence in the impugned order, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less 11 OA No.1152/2013 cogent, to assume that the DA has awarded the punishment to the applicant on the basis of his previous misconduct/absence. Indeed, the applicant was punished for absence of 77 days, 210 days and 109 days, which was the subject matter of the charge sheet and not otherwise.
21. Moreover, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of U.O.I. & Others Vs. Bishamber Das Dogra (2009) 13 SCC 102 has ruled that in case of misconduct of grave nature or indiscipline, even in absence of statutory rules, the authority may take into consideration the indisputable past conduct/service record of the employee for adding the weight to the decision of imposing the punishment, if the facts of the case so require. It was also held that habitual absenteeism means, gross violation of discipline.
22. An unsuccessful attempt has been made by learned counsel that the absence of the applicant was not wilful as he could not attend his duty on account of his illness and illness of his son. This argument is again not tenable and deserves to be dismissed for more than one reason. At the first instance, the applicant has neither made his statement of defence, that he was absent on account of his illness nor has produced any medical evidence in this regard, during the course of enquiry. He cannot claim illness leave as a matter of right, as contemplated under Rule 7 of the CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter to be referred as "Leave Rules"). Besides Rule 7, Rule 19 (1)(ii) postulates that, in respect of a non-Gazetted 12 OA No.1152/2013 Government servant, an application for leave on medical grounds shall be accompanied by a medical certificate Form 4 given by a CGHS doctor. According to Rule 25(2) of Leave Rules, the wilful absence from duty after the expiry of leave, renders a Government servant liable for disciplinary action.
23. Moreover, assuming for the sake of argument (though not admitted), if applicant was seriously sick, even then he has to inform the department and ought to have got his leave sanctioned from the competent authority as per relevant rules, in view of the ratio of judgment of this Tribunal in OA No.1320/2013 decided on 28.02.2014 titled as Ramesh Kumar Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Others, which is totally lacking in the present case.
24. What cannot possibly be disputed here is that wilful absence from duty by a Government servant, is a serious misconduct. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mithilesh Singh Vs. Vs. U.O.I. & Others AIR 2003 SC 1724 has ruled that absence from duty without prior intimation is a grave offence warranting removal from service. Similarly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh (1996) 1 SCC 302, held that absence of the respondent from duty would amount to grave misconduct and there was no justification for the High Court to interfere with the punishment holding that the punishment was not commensurate with the gravity of the 13 OA No.1152/2013 charge. In other words, the wilful and unauthorised absence of the applicant is duly proved on record.
25. Meaning thereby, the wilful and unauthorised absence of the applicant is duly proved on record. The DA and AA have correctly appreciated the matter in the right perspective.
26. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of judicial review of this Tribunal in such disciplinary matters is very limited. The Hon'ble Apex Court while considering the jurisdiction of judicial review and rule of evidence in the case of B.C. Chaturvedi Vs. U.O.I. & Others AIR 1996 SC 484 has ruled as under:-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.14 OA No.1152/2013
13. The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364), this Court held at page 728 (of SCR): (at p 369 of AIR), that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued".
27. Sequelly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.L. Shinde v. State of Mysore, (1976) 3 SCC 76, having considered the scope of jurisdiction of this Tribunal in appreciation of evidence has ruled as under:-
"9. Regarding the appellant's contention that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge against him, it may be observed that neither the High Court nor this Court can re- examine and re-assess the evidence in writ proceedings. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark. It may also be observed that departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal prosecutions in which high degree of proof is required. It is true that in the instant case reliance was placed by the Superintendent of Police on the earlier statements made by the three police constables including Akki from which they resiled but that did not vitiate the enquiry or the impugned order of dismissal, as departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act. That apart, as already stated, copies of the statements made by these constables were furnished to the appellant and he cross-examined all of them with the help of the police friend provided to him. It is also significant that Akki admitted in the course of his statement that he did make the former statement before P. S. I. Khada-bazar police station, Belgaum, on November 21, 1961 (which revealed appellant's complicity in the smuggling activity) but when asked to explain as to why he made that statement, he expressed his inability to do so. The present case is, in our opinion, covered by a decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa, (1963) 2 SCR 943 = AIR 1963 SC 375 where it was held as follows:-
"Domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and therefore, they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being 15 OA No.1152/2013 fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against who it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts.
2. In respect of taking the evidence in an enquiry before such tribunal, the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the explanation of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him ,and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. They are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them."
28. Therefore, taking into consideration the material and evidence on record and the legal position, as discussed herein above, we are of the considered opinion that the EO has correctly evaluated the evidence of the prosecution. The DA has rightly imposed the indicated punishment, which was upheld by the AA. The DA as well as AA have recorded cogent reasons and examined the matter in the right perspective. We do not find any illegality, irregularity or any perversity in the impugned orders. Hence, no interference is warranted in this case by this Tribunal, in the obtaining circumstances of the case.
29. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties. 16 OA No.1152/2013
30. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and thus seen from any angle, there is no merit and hence the OA deserves to be and is hereby dismissed, as such. However, the parties are left to bear their own costs.
(V.N. GAUR) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR) MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J) Rakesh