Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Bijender Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 8 November, 2016
1 OA No.100/430/2014
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
PRINCIPAL BENCH: NEW DELHI
O.A No.100/430/2014
Reserved On:03.11.2016
Pronounced On:08.11.2016
Hon'ble Mr. Justice M. S. Sullar, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. P.K. Basu, Member (A)
Bijender Singh, Age 59 years
S/o Shri Nawab Singh
R/o Quarter No.B-58,
Police Station Geeta Colony,
Delhi-110032.
(Head Constable, Delhi Police)
Posted in Tis Hazari Court's Security,
North District, Delhi. ..Applicant
(Argued by:Dr. Kanwal Sapra, Advocate)
Versus
1. The Commissioner of Police,
Police Head Quarters,
MSO Building,
I.P. Estate,
New Delhi.
2. The Joint Commissioner of Police,
Central Range,
Police Head Quarters,
MSO Building, Indra Prastha Estate,
Delhi.
3. The Addl. Dy. Commissioner of Police,
North District,
Civil Lines
Delhi. ....... Respondents
(By Advocate: Mrs. P.K. Gupta)
ORDER
Justice M.S. Sullar, Member (J) The challenge in this Original Application (OA), filed by applicant, HC Bijender Singh, is to the impugned orders 2 OA No.100/430/2014 dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure-A), whereby a regular Departmental Enquiry (DE) was initiated against him by the competent authority, dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-B), vide which a penalty of forfeiture of 2 years approved service, permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs.11670/- to Rs.10380/- with immediate effect, was imposed on him by the Disciplinary Authority (DA) and order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure-C), by virtue of which, his appeal was dismissed by the Appellate Authority (AA).
2. The crux of the facts & material, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy involved in the instant OA, and exposited from the record, is that, on 26.05.2006 at about 11.00 AM, applicant was driving a scooter bearing registration No.DL- 7SQ-7364 in a rash and negligent manner and rammed it, in one pedestrian named Shri Om Prakash Jain and caused grievous injuries. Moreover, after the accident, his attitude towards the injured was very indifferent, irresponsible and unbecoming of a police officer, as he fled away with the scooter from the scene of the occurrence, instead of giving helping hand to the injured. Thus, he was stated to have committed grave misconduct, negligence and carelessness as a such police official.
3. As a consequence thereof, a regular Departmental Enquiry (DE), was initiated against the applicant and 3 OA No.100/430/2014 Enquiry Officer (EO) was appointed under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter to be referred as "D.P. Rules"), vide impugned order dated 24.03.2011 (Annexure-A) by the DA.
4. After following the due procedure of enquiry, the following summary of allegations were served upon the applicant:-
"It is alleged that 27/5/06 at about 11 a.m., H.C. Vijender Singh No. 477/N, previous no. 3826/DAP IVth Bn.PIS No. 28780174 were driving scooter No.DL-7SQ-7364 from Chandgi Ram Akhara side to ISBT Kashmiri Gate in rash and negligent manner and hit one pedestrian namely Om Prakash Jain and caused him grievous injuries. Moreover, after meeting this accident, his attitude towards the injured was very indifferent, irresponsible and unbecoming of a police officer when he fled away with scooter from the scent of accident instead of giving helping hand to the injured. In this manner, he behaved against the role of a police officer as well as human being. A case vide FIR No. 179/06, u/s 279/337IPC was registered in P.S.Civil Lines on the complaint of Smt. Sudesh Jain, the wife of the injured. He was arrested in that case and charge-sheeted accordingly."
5. After completion of the enquiry and considering the material on record, the EO recorded and evaluated the evidence of the parties and came to a definite conclusion, that the charge framed against the applicant stands duly proved, vide impugned enquiry report conveyed to the applicant, vide Memo dated 20.11.2012 [Annexure A-4 (Colly)].
6. Having completed all the codal formalities and agreeing with the findings of the EO, the above mentioned penalty was imposed on the applicant, vide impugned order dated 24.12.2012 (Annexure-B), by the DA. The appeal filed by him 4 OA No.100/430/2014 was dismissed, vide impugned order dated 26.11.2013 (Annexure-C) by the AA as well.
7. Aggrieved thereby, the applicant has preferred the instant OA, to challenge the impugned DE proceedings and orders, invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
8. The case set up by the applicant, in brief, insofar as relevant, is that, the EO did not discuss any point/evidence in his report before arriving at any conclusion. It was incumbent on his part to have discussed the prosecution vis- à-vis defence pleas. Moreover, the 2 material witnesses, namely, Om Prakash Jain and his wife Smt. Sudesh Jain were not examined in DE on the ground that they were untraceable. In the absence of both the material witnesses, the EO has wrongly arrived at the conclusion that the charge stands proved, which according to him, is a violation of Article 311(2) of the Constitution of India. The EO, DA & AA were stated to have ignored the inspection report of the vehicle in question, i.e. scooter and other record of investigation. Even the applicant was not duly identified by the eye witnesses. Hence, it is a case of no evidence, but still he was punished by the relevant authorities.
9. According to the applicant, that he was honourably acquitted in the criminal case registered against him, by way of FIR No.179/2006 under Section 279/337 IPC by the police 5 OA No.100/430/2014 of Police Station, Civil Lines, vide judgment of acquittal dated 02.04.2013 by MM, Tis Hazari Courts (Annexure A-8). It was pleaded, that applicant never approached the injured in the hospital for compromise, whereas according to the prosecution version, he was seen in the Trauma Centre on 27.05.2006 and he was arrested on 28.05.2006. The inspection memo and the judgment of acquittal were stated to have been wrongly ignored by the AA.
10. The applicant claimed, that the impugned orders are bad in law, arbitrary, illegal, against the principles of natural justice, non-application of mind and he was punished, without any fault on his part. On the strength of the aforesaid grounds, the applicant seeks to quash the impugned DE proceedings and orders, in the manner indicated hereinabove.
11. The respondents refuted the claim of the applicant and filed their reply, wherein, it was, inter alia, pleaded as under:-
"The brief facts of the case are that a departmental enquiry was initiated against HC Bijender Singh No. 477/N (PIS No. 28780174) (hereinafter called the applicant) vide this office order no. 5331-61/HAP (P-1)/North dated 24.3.2011, under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) rules, 1980, on the allegation that while posted in 4th Bn. DAP, on 26.5.2006 at about 11AM was driving scooter no.|DL-7SQ-7364 from Chandgi Ram Akhara side to ISBT Kashmere Gate in rash and negligent manner and hit one instead of giving a helping hand to the injured in this manner, he behaved against the role of a police officer as well as human being A case FIR No. 179/06 u/s 279/337 IPC was registered in PS Civil Lines on the complaint of Smt. Sudesh Jain, the wife of the injured. He was arrested in this case and charge sheeted accordingly.
The DE was initially entrusted to Inspector Dinesh Sharma ATO PS Roop Nagar, who prepared the summary of allegation, list of documents and served the same upon the delinquent on 6.4.2011. The enquiry officer examined all 03 PWs and opportunity to cross examine them was given to 6 OA No.100/430/2014 the delinquent, which he availed. Later the DE was transferred to Inspector Surender Kumar No. D/3702 ATO PS SUbzi Mandi. On the testimony of the PWs the EO prepared the charge, which was duly approved by the disciplinary authority and served upon the delinquent on 23.6.2012. The delinquent neither pleaded guilty nor produced any defence witness. The delinquent submitted his defence statement on 17.8.2012. The EO completed the departmental enquiry proceedings and submitted his finding to disciplinary authority with the conclusion that "from the enquiry conducted charge made against HC Bijender Singh No. 477/N stand proved beyond doubt''. Tentatively agreeing with the delinquent submitted his representation against finding on 30.11.2012. The delinquent was also heard on OR on 13.12.2012.
The Competent Authority carefully perused the DE file including the statement of PWs, defence statement of the delinquent HC Bijender No. 477/N as well as his written representation submitted by him against the finding of the EO and other documentary evidence of DE file. Vide his representation the mainly pleaded that since the matter is subjudice, the DE is not maintainable. He further stated that all the allegations against him are false and fabricated. He has emphasized upon the non appearance of the main PWs (PW-1 & PW-2) being untraceable. Further, he has stated that Chitha Munsi of 4th Bn. DAP has only proved that on the day of incident he was not on duty does not mean that he was present on the spot of accident. Moreover, the IO of the case has failed to make any witness from the public who witnessed the incident. For the sake of natural justice, he was allowed for a personal appearance on 13.12.2012 but he stated nothing else other than what he stated in his written representation.
The plea put forth by the delinquent in his representation and during OR are not tenable. It is a case of gross misconduct, negligence and spot instead of helping the injured, which is absolutely in human on his part, apart from tarnishing the lawful duties of a police officer.
Therefore, the Competent Authority had awarded him punishment of two years approved service forfeiture permanently entailing reduction in his pay from Rs.11670/- + Rs.2800 (G.P) to Rs.10830/- + 2800/- (G.P) with immediate effect vide order no. 14837-56/HAP (P-1)/North dated 24.12.2012. Aggrieved with the punishment order, the applicant preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority, who considered and rejected the same vide Order No. 566-77/P.Sec./ Jt.CP/CR dated 26.11.2013. Aggrieved by this, he filed the present O.A. No. 430/2014."
12. Instead of reproducing the entire contents of the reply and in order to avoid the repetition, suffice it to say that virtually acknowledging the factual matrix & reiterating the validity of the impugned DE proceedings and orders, the respondents have stoutly denied all other allegations and grounds contained in the OA and prayed for its dismissal. 7 OA No.100/430/2014
13. Controverting the pleadings in the reply of the respondents and reiterating the grounds contained in the OA, the applicant filed his rejoinder.
14. At the very outset, it will not be out of place to mention here, that initially this OA was dismissed on merits, vide order dated 29.04.2015 by a Coordinate Bench of this Tribunal. The order reads as under:-
"2. The applicant takes us to Annexure A/7, which is a request for vehicle mechanical inspection of a vehicle involved in an accident. This seems to be forwarded by ASI Gurdeep Singh No. 1111-D, in other words, a Police Officer. In this case, he himself had given inspection report indicating that there is no fresh damage. For offence under Sections 279/337 to occur, there is no necessity that vehicle must suffer a damage. It is not an impact alone on the vehicle which matters, but the consequences of that impact by which the concerned person may have fallen down on the road and sustained grievous injuries. But the issue in it is not an offence under Sections 279/337 alone had been committed, but it is a matter of hit and run. The applicant being a Police Officer and a public officer is bound to help in an accident, even though he may not have been involved in it. The very fact that the wife of the injured had identified him and filed FIRs on the basis of which charges were made against him, speaks volume. The mere fact that she did not appear as a witness either in the departmental enquiry or in the criminal trial is neither here and there. The person, who can manage 'no fresh damage report' even on the request for mechanical inspection, can manage many other things. Our conscience would militate against granting any other reliefs to the applicant other than recording the fact that he was let off very leniently. The Police ought to have taken a coercive step to the concerned when she failed to appear as a witness. Instead of that, having allowed the matter to go unheeded and secured a discharge for a colleague from the criminal court, there cannot be a basis for disbelieving the process of disciplinary enquiry. OA has no merit and is accordingly dismissed. No costs".
15. However, in the wake of Writ Petition (C) No.10563/2015, filed by the applicant, the matter was remanded back for fresh hearing by this Tribunal, vide order dated 16.11.2015 by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. That is how we are seized of the matter.
16. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, having gone through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter, we are of the firm view 8 OA No.100/430/2014 that there is no merit and the instant OA deserves to be dismissed, for the reasons mentioned hereinbelow.
17. Ex-facie, the argument of learned counsel that since no cogent evidence is available on record, to prove the misconduct of the applicant, so the impugned DE proceedings and orders are liable to be set aside, is not only devoid of merit, but misplaced as well.
18. As is evident from the record, very glaring allegations are assigned that on 27.05.2006 at about 11.00 AM, applicant was driving his scooter bearing registration No.DL- 7SQ-7364 and caused accident in question, causing grievous injuries to injured Om Prakash Jain. Instead of providing helping hand to the injured, he ran away from the place of occurrence along with his scooter. The prosecution, in order to substantiate its case, examined PW-1 Ct. Harvinder Singh, Chittha Munshi, who has produced duty roster of the applicant. PW-2 HC Satish Kumar (now ASI) has stated, that on 27.05.2006, he was detailed as Duty Officer. Ct. Jitender No.1006/N brought a Rukka, sent through SI Mohan Lal for registration of the case, on the basis of which a criminal case was registered against the accused, vide FIR No.179/2006 (Exhibit PW-2/A) under section 279/337 IPC in Police Station, Civil Lines, Delhi. He handed over original Rukka and copy of FIR to Ct. Jitender for delivering the same to PW- 9 OA No.100/430/2014 3 SI Mohan Lal Investigation Officer (IO) in the case. PW-3, SI Mohan Lal IO has maintained as under:-
"On 20.07.2011 he was examined and he stated that he has retired from Delhi Police in December, 2008. On dated 27.05.2006, he was posted in PS Civil Lines. On receipt of DD No.12A regarding accident, he along with Ct. Jitender No.1006/N reached at outer Ring Road, Kudesia Park, where he came to know that PCR Van has taken the injured to Trauma Centre. He reached in Trauma Centre and obtained MLC No.75953 of injured Om Prakash, on which doctor has opined the patient unfit for statement. On enquiry wife of injured Smt. Sudesh Jain was found present who stated that today he along with her husband were going to Yamuna dip towards Kudesia Park. While they were crossing the road, at around 11, one scooter rider drove his scooter from Chandgi Ram Akhara in rash and negligent manner and hit her husband. Her husband fell down and he sustained injuries on head and other part of the body. Scooter rider also fell down, but later he left the place along with his Scooter Regn. No.DL-7SQ-7364. She can identify the accused if shown to her. On her statement, FIR No.179/2006, u/s 279/337 IPC was registered in PS Civil Lines. Later, SI Mohan Lal reached Trauma Centre to record the statement of injured, where doctor has opined the patient fit for statement. Injured Om Prakash stated that scooter rider was wearing Khakhi uniform and today he has come to the hospital to settle this issue amicably, whose name has been disclosed as HC Bijender Singh and who was present here. Injured Om Prakash pointed out HC Bijender Singh by hins hand that he was the person who drove his scooter No.DL-7SQ-7364 in rash and negligent manner and hit him with his scooter. Later notice to the owner of the scooter was given and HC Bijender Singh was arrested in case FIR No.179/2006 u/s 279/337 IPC. HC Bijender was released on bail as the offence was bailable".
19. PW-3 was duly cross-examined by the applicant, but nothing substantial material could be elicited in the cross- examination, to dislodge his testimony.
20. Thus, it would be seen, that it stands proved on the record that it was the applicant, who caused the accident in question with the scooter in which Om Prakash Jain sustained grievous injuries. He fled away from the place of occurrence of the accident. Injured remained unconscious in the hospital and the present case was registered on the statement of his wife, Smt. Sudesh Jain. Having regained consciousness, Om Prakash Jain stated that scooter driver was wearing Khakhi (police uniform) and he has come in the 10 OA No.100/430/2014 hospital to settle the matter amicably with him (the injured). He disclosed his name to the injured as Bijender Singh. Even he has identified him, as such driver of the offending scooter. Thus there is a positive evidence on record that applicant has caused the accident in question, while driving the scooter in question in a rash and negligent manner. Later, notice to the owner of the scooter was given. Applicant was arrested in the criminal case and later released on bail in the indicated case.
21. Sequelly, non-examination of complainant Smt. Sudesh Jain and injured Om Prakash Jain, is not at all fatal to the prosecution case, as urged on behalf of the applicant because as per report of Ct. Sanjay Kaushik, they were not found residing at the given address & were untraceable. Even the EO has sought permission for continuing DE proceedings from the competent authority. On the contrary, the applicant has neither submitted any reply to the charge sheet, nor informed about his intention to examine the Defence Witnesses (DWs) in defence, despite several opportunities given to him, as is clear from the enquiry report. That means, the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, remained unrebutted and unchallenged.
22. This is not the end of the matter. It is not a matter of dispute that a criminal case was registered against the applicant, vide FIR No.179/2006 on accusation of having committed the offences punishable under section 279/337 11 OA No.100/430/2014 IPC, in which he was arrested and was released on bail, as the offences were bailable. The case was investigated, evidence was collected and a final police report under Section 173 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 was submitted against him. He was accordingly charge sheeted for the above mentioned offences by the court and put on trial. If all these facts are analysed and put together, then conclusion is inescapable. Not only that the accident in question had taken place due to negligence of the applicant but at the same time instead of giving helping hand to the injured, he fled away from the spot.
23. The mere fact, that the applicant has successfully managed the non-appearance of complainant and injured in the court and secured the acquittal, vide judgment dated 02.04.2013 (Annexure A-8) on that account, ipso facto, is not a ground, much less cogent, to exonerate him from the grave charges of misconduct in the DE proceedings, particularly when his misconduct is otherwise duly proved, by way of indicated oral as well as documentary evidence on record. Similarly the copies of Vigilance Manual Volume-I and Service Laws in India produced by the learned counsel for the applicant, is not at all applicable to decide the real controversy between the parties.
24. Otherwise also, it was the moral duty of the applicant (police official), to render helping hand to the person, who sustained grievous injuries in the accident in question. 12 OA No.100/430/2014 Instead of providing any help, he has chosen to ran away from the place of accident. It did not behove to a police official of Delhi Police. Thus, his misconduct is duly proved in the manner discussed hereinabove.
25. The next feeble arguments of the learned counsel that DA and AA have neither provided adequate opportunity of being heard nor took into consideration the mechanical report of vehicle, inspection report of the spot and even no identification parade was properly held, so the charges are not proved against the applicant, again have no legal force and cannot be accepted. Since there was no dispute about the identity of the applicant from the very beginning, so question of holding a test identification parade, pales into insignificance and was not required at all. Above all, the mechanical report, inspection report and test identification parade may be valid in a criminal case, but the same are not at all relevant in the present departmental proceedings.
26. Moreover, it cannot possibly be disputed here is that provisions of Evidence Act are not strictly applicable in the Departmental Enquiry, as are applicable as such in criminal trials because proceeding in a criminal case and the departmental proceedings operate in distinct and different jurisdictional areas. Whereas in the departmental proceedings, where a charge relating to misconduct is being investigated, the factors operating in the mind of Disciplinary Authority may be many such as enforcement of discipline or 13 OA No.100/430/2014 to investigate the level of competency of the delinquent. The standard of proof required in those proceedings is also different than that required in criminal case. While in departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is one of preponderance of the probabilities, whereas in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
27. Thus, the EO was required to decide the real controversy between the parties, on the Doctrine of preponderance of probability of evidence. In this backdrop, in the instant case the EO has rightly concluded, that the charges levelled against the applicant, stand duly proved. In that eventuality, it cannot possibly be saith that either there is no cogent evidence on record against the applicant or the relevant authorities have not provided the opportunity of being heard to him, as urged on his behalf.
28. Therefore, in the absence of any procedural illegality and irregularity, in conduct of DE, no ground, much less cogent to interfere with the impugned enquiry proceedings and orders is made out, in view of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Coal India Limited and Another Vs. Mukul Kumar Choudhuri and Others (2009) 15 SCC 620.
29. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of judicial review of this Tribunal in such disciplinary matters is very limited. The 14 OA No.100/430/2014 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.
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".15 OA No.100/430/2014
30. 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 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 16 OA No.100/430/2014 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."
31. 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 the obtaining circumstances of the case by this Tribunal.
32. No other point, worth consideration, has been urged or pressed by learned counsel for the parties.
33. In the light of the aforesaid reasons and thus seen 17 OA No.100/430/2014 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.
(P.K. BASU) (JUSTICE M.S. SULLAR)
MEMBER (A) MEMBER (J)
08.11.2016
Rakesh