Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana State Electricity Board Now ... vs Rattan Singh on 28 January, 2010
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
Regular Second Appeal No.2884 of 2008 (O&M) :1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision: January 28, 2010
Haryana State Electricity Board now Haryana Vidyut Parsaran
Nigam Limited, Chandigarh & others
...Appellants
VERSUS
Rattan Singh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present: Mr.Praveen Gupta, Advocate,
for the appellants.
Mr.J.P.Sharma, Advocate,
for the respondent.
*****
RANJIT SINGH, J.
Respondent-plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction with a prayer that while posted at Kanina, a criminal case was registered against him under Section 409 IPC. Respondent-plaintiff was accordingly put under suspension and during the pendency of this, XEN was detailed as an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the matter. Said XEN submitted a report that the respondent-plaintiff has deposited the money and he be reinstated. The Board terminated the Regular Second Appeal No.2884 of 2008 (O&M) :2:
services of the respondent-plaintiff on 11.10.1994, which, he challenged through the civil suit, alleging that this order was ante- dated and malafide. He also pleaded that the order was passed without initiating the enquiry as per the law and without recording any evidence. His grievance further is that no charge was proved against him. Subsequently, the respondent-plaintiff was also acquitted of the criminal charge, referred to above, and accordingly pleaded that order of his termination was null & void.
In response to notice issued, written statement was filed. It is pleaded that while being posted as L.D.C.(C), the respondent- plaintiff did not maintain the cash book correctly and misappropriated the property of the defendant. As per the allegations, he miscalculated the total from 24.11.1982 to 24.3.1983 to the tune of Rs.4530/-, from 13.4.1983 to 14.2.1984 to the tune of Rs.3494-65. The allegation of taking some amount, like Rs.877-95 and Rs.377-95 on different dates is also made. It is stated that the respondent- plaintiff was charge sheeted and no satisfactory reply was filed. Show cause notice for termination was accordingly issued. Reliance is placed on the report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, who found the respondent-plaintiff guilty. It is stated that the Enquiry Officer had proposed the penalty, which was beyond his jurisdiction. It is also stated that the respondent-plaintiff had admitted his guilt in an affidavit and so there was no requirement or need to hold an enquiry and accordingly the order of termination passed in respect of the respondent was stated to be as per the rules and regulations.
On the basis of the pleadings, the suit was tried. It was argued before the trial court that show cause notice dated 18.9.1985 Regular Second Appeal No.2884 of 2008 (O&M) :3:
was issued without receipt of any reply to the charge sheet and without conducting any enquiry. This was stated to be in violation of Regulation (5) of Haryana State Electricity Board Punishment & Appeal Regulation, 1980 (for short "the Regulation"). It is also noticed that before issuing termination order, neither the respondent-plaintiff was summoned nor enquiry report was given to him. By making reference to the various provisions of the Regulation, the trial court declared the termination order to be null & void, holding the respondent-plaintiff to be entitled to consequential benefits. The appeal filed by the Board was also dismissed on 24.4.2008. The Board is, thus, before this court by way of this Regular Second Appeal.
The main submission made on behalf of the Board is that the courts below had failed to appreciate that the enquiry was not required to be held while directing termination of the respondent- plaintiff as it was a case of admission of guilt by him. Counsel pleads that in such eventuality, there was no necessity to hold an enquiry. He has referred to the relevant regulation in support of his plea.
No doubt, Regulation 8 does provide that where the person pleads guilty to any articles of charge, the inquiring officer shall record the plea, sign the record and obtain the signatures of the employee thereon. Regulation 9 further makes a provision that inquiring authority shall return a finding of guilt in respect of those articles of charge to which the employee pleads guilty. The counsel for the respondent-plaintiff, however, joins serious issue in regard to the applicability of these provisions. As per the counsel, the affidavit, which is taken into consideration to say that the respondent had Regular Second Appeal No.2884 of 2008 (O&M) :4:
pleaded guilty would neither disclose a plea of guilty as is being construed nor can it be taken so. The counsel would further contend that the reading of the affidavit would clearly show that it cannot be taken as an admission of guilt as is being made out.
The whole reliance by the appellants is on the affidavit allegedly given by the respondent-plaintiff, which was exhibited on record as Exh.DW7/D. Copy of the same in vernacular is perused by me. No doubt, the respondent-plaintiff had deposited some amount, as is disclosed in the affidavit, but while talking about this case, he categorically deposed in para 2 of the affidavit as under:-
"That he had earlier also agreed that while accepting the cash, he happened to unintentionally commit mistake because of paucity of time".
In this background, he agreed to deposit the amount. His plight is also reflected from this affidavit, which would show that he had remained under suspension for ten years, for which his family was facing extreme hardship. He accordingly pleaded that he may be taken on duty and also agreed to remain bound by the outcome of the criminal case. It would defy a sense of logic to say that this affidavit can either be construed as an admission in any form or that the respondent-plaintiff had admitted his guilt through this, for which enquiry could be dispensed with and that the Enquiry Officer was required to return this finding as such.
The meaning of term "admission" is well understood. An admission is confession or voluntary acknowledgment made by a party or someone identified with him in legal interest of the existence of certain facts which are in issue or relevant to an issue in the case.
Regular Second Appeal No.2884 of 2008 (O&M) :5:
Admission of any incriminating fact is not an admission of a guilt. [See Manikmalakar Vs. State of Assam, 1976 Cri. LJ 1921]. Admission by a party as a whole has to be looked into for arriving at a conclusion and it is required to be read in its entirety. No statement read out of context can constitute an admission of any fact. Difference between the term "admission" and "confession" is also required to be understood. Where a statement of a person merely contains an admission of a fact, which may be relevant, but no admission of guilt or of a fact constituting the offence it would only be an admission and not a confession. An admission, in order to be competent and to have the value and effect should be clear, certain and definite, and not ambiguous, vague or confused. Every admission should be given a plain literal and a fair meaning and its scope should not be widened or restricted on the basis of suspicions or surmises. Statements when their natural import will not bear out the interpretation that is sought to be put on them, would not amount to admissions of the points which are sought to be made out. Statements to operate as admissions must be clear in their meaning. [See Dolat Singh Ji Jaswant Singh Ji Vs. Khachar Mansur Rukhad and others, AIR 1936 PC 150].
Seen in this context, the statement attributed to the respondent can, by no stretch of imagination, be termed as admission of guilt on his part. Once a person says that he has committed some unintentional mistake due to paucity of time, it can certainly not be taken to mean that he had admitted his guilt of embezzlement and on this ground there was no need of enquiry and Regular Second Appeal No.2884 of 2008 (O&M) :6:
finding of guilty was required to be recorded. This affidavit has been rightly construed by the courts below to reject the submissions on these lines made on behalf of the appellants. It is seen that the appellants are not properly advised to pursue this line of reasoning and even to come up with this appeal in view of the background of this factual position. Someone at some stage was required to tell the Board not to waste the time of the courts and its money by pursuing the litigation which is frivolous. This conduct cannot be appreciated. To curb the tendency to file appeals even in such cases where no substantial question of law is involved, the same needs to be dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.20,000/-.
January 28, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE