Delhi District Court
Ishwar Singh vs Union Of India on 4 July, 2013
In the Court of Sh. Praveen Singh: Senior Civil Judgecum Rent
Controller (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Suit. No. 342/06
Ishwar Singh,
S/o Sh. Gaze Singh,
R/o Village Dhundwa, P.O Khas Dhundwa,
Distt. Kaithal,
Haryana110039. ....................... Plaintiff.
VERSUS
1. Union of India.
Through Secretary
Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi.
2. Director General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
CISF Headquarters,
13, CGO Complex,
Lodhi Road, New Delhi.
3. Deputy Inspector General,
Central Industrial Security Force,
Western Zone, RCFL ComplexChembur,
Mumbai400074.
Suit No. 342/06 1 of 22
4. Commandant,
Central Industrial Security Force
CISF Unit BHEL, Bhopal,
M.P. ........................ Defendants.
Date of Institution : 01.06.2001.
Date of Arguments: 03.07.2013.
Date of Judgment : 04.07.2013.
SUIT FOR DECLARATION.
JUDGMENT :
The present suit for declaration has been filed by the plaintiff against the defendants.
2. Briefly stated the case of the plaintiff is, that the plaintiff was working as Constable in Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at the CISF Unit BHEL, Bhopal. It is the case of the plaintiff that vide letter no. V15014/BEL/Disc/34/9709476 dated 27.11.1997, certain false allegations of beating, abusing and misbehaving with the senior officials were levelled upon the plaintiff. A preliminary inquiry was held into the matter by Inspector Gulsher Ali. However, the said inquiry was conducted illegally as no opportunity to explain the case and present his case was given to the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority arbitrarily and Suit No. 342/06 2 of 22 illegally appointed the inquiry officer on 22/23.12.1997 and vide order no. V15014/BHEL/Disc./985134 dated 03.07.1998 removed the plaintiff from the service. It is submitted by the plaintiff that the inquiry officer did not conduct the inquiry properly as the plaintiff was not given any opportunity to give reply to the charge memorandum and the inquiry proceedings were illegally started without having any reply to the charge memorandum from the plaintiff. It is further submitted that in the preliminary inquiry, the plaintiff was illegally and arbitrarily not supplied with the copies of the statements of those prosecution witnesses who were proposed to be examined in the regular departmental inquiry. The plaintiff was only supplied with the copy of preliminary inquiry report without the statements of the witnesses. That the inquiry officer, during the cross examination of PW1, Insp. Siddqui, illegally got the documents proved and the plaintiff was not given the copy of those documents. The inquiry officer also illegally got proved the GD No. 129 recorded on 05.11.1997 at 1045 hours and GD No. 123 recorded on 05.11.1997 at 0630 hours by ASI O.P Sharma. However, the inquiry officer arbitrarily and illegally did not examine the ASI O.P. Sharma in the inquiry and such GD entries were used against the plaintiff. It is further submitted that the inquiry officer illegally recorded the statements of witnesses such as SI B.K. Sharma, HC M.D. Ramteke, ASI/M Prayag Kumar and Deputy Commandant Sh. P.K. Sharma, whose names were not Suit No. 342/06 3 of 22 included in the list of prosecution witnesses and, this caused serious prejudice to the defence of the plaintiff. The inquiry officer illegally in violation of the plaintiff's right to defend himself conducted the inquiry ex parte. A further ground taken by the plaintiff is, that the main prosecution witnesses i.e. SI Garib Singh and Deputy Commandant Sh. P.K. Sharma were examined by the inquiry officer on 12.05.1998 when the plaintiff was on leave and thus, the plaintiff was deprived of his right of cross examination. It is further submitted that the inquiry officer not only conducted illegal cross examination of the prosecution witnesses but also asked leading questions from the witnesses. That the inquiry officer violated the rules and procedure of the departmental inquiry as laid down in CCS Rules as, before recording the statement of defence of the plaintiff, the inquiry officer recorded the statements of DW1 Ct. Kanwaljeet Singh and DW2 Ct. S.K. Jha. The inquiry officer gave the perverse finding of proving the charge only on the basis of biased witnesses and the statements of independent witnesses were discarded. That the inquiry officer failed to consider the most important aspect of the inquiry, which was clearly proved on record that despite insistence by the plaintiff, the medical examination of the plaintiff was not got done. The copy of the inquiry report was given to the plaintiff on 19.05.1998 for making representation against the inquiry report. However, the said report was supplied to the plaintiff without the Suit No. 342/06 4 of 22 tentative opinion of the disciplinary authority. It is further submitted that the disciplinary authority arbitrarily and perversely agreed with the findings of the inquiry officer and did not appreciate the evidence on record and arbitrarily removed the plaintiff from services on 03.07.1998. The plaintiff submitted an appeal to the DIG (W.Z) and pleaded that the entire proceedings were conducted with the motive of extracting revenge upon the plaintiff. However, vide order dated 18.05.1999, the appeal of the plaintiff was rejected by the DIG. Hence, the present suit for passing a decree of declaration whereby the order dated 03.07.1998 passed by the Commandant CISF and the appellate order dated 18.05.1999 passed by the Deputy Inspector General (Western zone) be declared as null, illegal and void. It is further prayed that the plaintiff be treated as continuing in service and entitled to all consequential service benefits.
3. On being served with the summons for settlement of issues, the defendants filed their written statement. In the written statement, a preliminary objection is taken that the plaintiff has not come to the court with clean hands. A further preliminary objection is taken that as per CISF Act and rules, the plaintiff had not preferred a revision petition against the order of disciplinary and appellate authorities.
4. On merits, it was admitted that the plaintiff was working as a Constable with the defendants. It is denied that the plaintiff was removed Suit No. 342/06 5 of 22 from the services illegally and arbitrarily. It is further denied that the inquiry was conducted in an illegal manner or that the plaintiff was not given an opportunity of being heard. It is denied that the plaintiff was not supplied with the copies of the documents or the statements of witnesses as alleged. It is denied that the plaintiff was proceeded exparte without providing him opportunity. It is further denied that the inquiry officer conducted illegal cross examination. It is submitted that the plaintiff was given the copy of report and an opportunity was again provided to the plaintiff to submit his objections/ reply but he failed to file the reply. It is further submitted that the findings of both the departmental enquiry officer and preliminary inquiry officer are almost same. The rest of the allegations were denied by the defendants.
5. In the replication to the written statement, the contents of the written statement are denied and the contents of the plaint are reaffirmed.
6. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by my learned predecessor vide his order dated 03.11.2004:
1. Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection no. 2 of the written statement? OPD.
2. Whether the order dated 03.07.1998 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 18.05.1999 passed by the appellate authority are illegal, null and void? OPP.
Suit No. 342/06 6 of 22
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP.
4. Relief
7. Thereafter, the parties led their respective evidence. The plaintiff examined himself as PW1. On the other hand, the defendants examined Sh. S.K. Sinha, Commandant CISF as DW1 and Sh. S.M. Borkar Retired Deputy Commandant as DW2.
8. I have heard learned counsels for the parties and perused the record very carefully. My issue wise findings are as under: ISSUE NO. 1: Whether the suit is not maintainable in view of the preliminary objection no. 2 of the written statement? OPD.
9. The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant. In the written statement, the defendants had taken a preliminary objection that, as per CISF Act and Rules, the plaintiff had not preferred a revision petition and therefore, the suit was not maintainable.
10. Learned counsel for the defendants has contended that Rule 54 of CISF Rules 2001 provides for revision against order of an appellate authority. The rule clearly provides that appellate authority may on its own motion or otherwise call for the records of any inquiry and revise any order made under the CISF rules. He thus contended that when the provision for revision was available, the first remedy which the plaintiff should have Suit No. 342/06 7 of 22 availed of was revision.
11. Countering the same, learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that, the CISF Rules 2001 will not govern the case of the plaintiff as the inquiry against the plaintiff was conducted in the year 199798 and therefore, the case of the plaintiff has to be governed by CISF Act and Rules 1969 and, in the said rules, Rule 49 provides for revision against an order of the appellate authority.
12. In this regard, I find that the case of the plaintiff has to be governed by CISF Rules 1969.
13. I have carefully read the rules. The rule 49 clearly provides that any authority superior to the authority making the order can revise the order suo moto. It does not provide any option to an aggrieved official or member of the force to file a revision against the order of the appellate authority and therefore, the remedy for revision was not available to the plaintiff under the rules which were governing his conditions of service at the relevant time. I therefore find, that as no right of filing revision was available to the plaintiff, non filing of the revision cannot be fatal to the suit of the plaintiff. The issue no. 1 is according decided against the defendants and in favour of the plaintiff.
ISSUES NO. 2 AND 3: (2)Whether the order dated 03.07.1998 passed by the disciplinary authority and the order dated 18.05.1999 passed by the Suit No. 342/06 8 of 22 appellate authority are illegal, null and void? OPP. (3) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the decree of declaration as prayed for? OPP.
14. The onus to prove these issues was upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff appearing as PW1 deposed that the inquiry was not done in a proper manner as firstly, the charge memorandum, which the plaintiff had kept in his suit case was stolen from the lines and because of the same, the plaintiff could not give any reply to the charge memorandum. In spite of the plaintiff informing the matter to the office, he was not given another copy of charge memorandum and, the inquiry proceedings were illegally started without giving a proper opportunity to the plaintiff.
15. During his cross examination, he deposed that he did not lodge any police report regarding the theft of his chargesheet or the suit case inn which it was kept and stated that he had reported the matter to the department. He deposed the he had reported the matter to the department in writing. He denied that he had not made any complaint in writing. He did not remember whether he had requested the department in writing for supply of another charge sheet?
16. On the other hand DW1 deposed that the plea taken by the plaintiff, that he had lost the chargesheet, is totally baseless and false. In fact, he knowingly failed to submit the reply during the preliminary hearing Suit No. 342/06 9 of 22 by the EO. He further deposed that in fact, the plaintiff had received the charge memorandum on 28.11.1997 but did not reply the same within the alloted time.
17. During his cross examination, he deposed that he could not say whether, the plaintiff had lost the charge memorandum and whether, another copy of charge memorandum was given to the plaintiff to enable him to reply it. He could not tell whether the plaintiff had told the IO (EO) in the preliminary hearing that the charge memorandum kept in the suit case was stolen or that the plaintiff was not given another charge memorandum.
18. On this point, DW2 Sh. S.M. Borkar, Retired Deputy Commandant deposed that the plea taken by the plaintiff, that he had lost the charge memorandum, is totally baseless and in fact, the plaintiff knowingly failed to submit the reply to the charge memorandum.
19. During his cross examination, he deposed that he was not aware if, the plaintiff had lost the suit case in which charge memorandum was kept.
20. The plaintiff has stated that he has lost his charge memorandum. Both the witnesses of the defendants i.e. DW1 and DW2, in their examination in chief, stated that the plaintiff had taken a baseless plea that he had lost his charge memorandum. However, during their cross examination, they became non committal. During their cross examination, Suit No. 342/06 10 of 22 they stated that they were not aware whether, the plaintiff had lost his charge memorandum or not. Therefore, when their testimonies are weighed opposite to the testimony of the plaintiff, the testimony of the plaintiff is on stronger footing. It is more so because in the inquiry report itself, it is clearly stated that the plaintiff did not file a reply to the charge memorandum and in the initial inquiry/ questioning, he had stated that the charge memorandum, which was in his suit case, was stolen and therefore, he could not answer the questions. The inquiry officer did not give any findings whether, the assertion of the plaintiff that the charge memorandum was stolen, was false or truthful. Therefore, I find that the inquiry officer who appeared as DW2 and had stated that he was not aware whether the plaintiff had lost his charge memorandum, was aware of the charge memorandum having been lost by the plaintiff and he being the inquiry officer was duty bound to follow principles of natural justice and supply another copy of charge memorandum to the plaintiff so that the plaintiff could have given a reply to it. The failure to do so was in violation of procedure as well as principles of natural justice.
21. The second ground taken by the plaintiff is that the statements of the witnesses recorded during the preliminary inquiry were not supplied to him and despite the fact in order to disbelieve the statement of a witness, which was favourable to the plaintiff, the inquiry officer relied upon the Suit No. 342/06 11 of 22 statement of that witness given during the preliminary inquiry.
22. The plaintiff appearing as PW1 further deposed that his statement was not recorded by inquiry officer during the preliminary inquiry and he was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses during the preliminary inquiry. However, while holding him guilty, the inquiry officer relied upon the statement of witnesses as given in the preliminary inquiry. He also deposed that although the copy of preliminary inquiry report was given to him, the statements of witnesses recorded during the preliminary inquiry were not supplied to him. There is no cross examination of the plaintiff on this point. Therefore, the testimony of the plaintiff, that the statements of witnesses as recorded during the preliminary inquiry were not supplied to him, has been entirely unrebutted.
23. DW2 Sh. S.M Borkar, during his cross examination, admitted that referring to the statement of the preliminary inquiry while giving inquiry report was wrong and against procedure. He deposed that he had not referred to the statements of witnesses in the preliminary inquiry. He admitted that the statement of the plaintiff was not recorded during the preliminary inquiry. He also admitted that the statement of the charged official should be recorded during the preliminary inquiry but the same cannot be taken against his will.
24. I have gone through the inquiry report filed by the defendants.
Suit No. 342/06 12 of 22 In the inquiry report, the inquiry officer has discussed the statement of witness Sh. M.K. Nayak. This witness was a witness of the department during the inquiry proceedings. However, this witness had deposed in favour of the plaintiff herein i.e. the delinquent official in the inquiry. This witness had stated that the plaintiff had not abused anyone and that the stars of the ASI Garib Singh were not pulled out by the plaintiff but the same had fallen in the scuffle. This testimony of the witness was discarded by the inquiry officer on the ground that it was in contradiction to the testimony of this witness as made during the preliminary inquiry on 06.11.1997. The inquiry officer finally concluded that the statement of witness Sh. M.K. Nayak was false. Admittedly, the plaintiff had not participated in the preliminary inquiry. The plaintiff was not given an opportunity to cross examine the witnesses who were recorded during the preliminary inquiry. He was not even supplied with the statement of witnesses as recorded during the preliminary inquiry.
25. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in case titled Union of India v Mohd. Ibrahim, (2004) 10 SCC 87 has held that if the preliminary inquiry had been held without associating the delinquent official, and the statements of the witnesses were recorded in absence of a delinquent official and these statements were not supplied to the delinquent official; relying upon these statements during final inquiry and to reach at a Suit No. 342/06 13 of 22 conclusion in the inquiry on the basis of these statements, vitiates the entire proceedings.
26. In the present case, it is very much clear that the testimony of a prosecution witness who had deposed favorably for the plaintiff, was discarded on the basis of the statement of this witness as recorded during the preliminary inquiry. The said statement was never supplied to the plaintiff. The plaintiff was never associated in the preliminary inquiry and therefore, the act of the inquiry officer in relying upon such a statement was illegal.
27. The third ground taken by the plaintiff is, that the inquiry officer recorded the statement of the witnesses who were not in the list of witnesses and no advance notice of intention to bring these witnesses on record was given to the plaintiff.
28. DW1 admitted that the statement of Deputy Commandant P.K. Sharma was recorded by the IO (EO) although he was not mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied alongwith the charge memorandum.
29. DW2, during his cross examination, deposed that he had not given any notice to the plaintiff regarding calling and examining the witnesses whose names were not included in the list of witnesses.
30. Learned counsel for the plaintiff has contended that as per rule 14 (15) of CCS (CCA) Rules, an inquiry officer may allow an evidence not included in the list given to the government servant but a three days notice Suit No. 342/06 14 of 22 or a copy of such list has to be provided to the government servant.
31. Countering the same, learned counsel for the defendants has contended that the testimonies of the witnesses Sh. P.K. Sharma, Deputy Commandant, HC M.D. Ramtek, ASI Prayag Kumar and SI B.K Shrama were not very significant testimonies and even without those testimonies, the inquiry officer would have reached at the same conclusion. Therefore, there is force in the contention of the plaintiff.
32. I have carefully considered the contentions made by learned counsels for the parties and have perused the record very carefully.
33. Admittedly, the names of the witnesses Deputy Commandant P.K. Sharma, HC M.D. Ramtek, ASI Prayag Kumar and SI B.K Shrama were not mentioned in the list of witnesses. Admittedly, no notice of the intention of the inquiry officer to examine these witnesses was ever given to the plaintiff. Admittedly, these witnesses were examined in absence of the plaintiff.
34. Rule 70 of CISF Rules 1969 clearly provides that on all other matters which have not been specifically provided for in these rules, the rules framed by the Central Government shall apply. CISF Rules 1969 do not provide for a witness, who is not mentioned in the list of witness, to be examined or the conditions thereof and therefore, the inquiry officer was duty bound to follow the CCS (CCA) Rules as framed by the Central Suit No. 342/06 15 of 22 Government. The inquiry officer did not follow the Rule 14 (15) of CCS (CCA) Rules and the witnesses Deputy Commandant P.K. Sharma, HC M.D. Ramtek, ASI Prayag Kumar and SI B.K Shrama were examined without them being mentioned in the list of witnesses supplied to the plaintiff and without giving any advance notice to the plaintiff. This in my opinion vitiates the inquiry because it is not important whether the testimonies of these witnesses would have made some difference to the final findings of the inquiry officer or not, what is significant is that if the procedure which has been laid down for doing something in a particular manner, that thing has been done in that manner or not at all. Any violation of the procedure vitiates the entire proceedings. In this regard, I rely upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sukhdev Singh v. Bhagatram, AIR 1975 SC 1331, wherein it has been held as under: An executive agency must be rigorously held to the standards by which it professes it's action to be judged. Accordingly, if dismissal from the employment based on defend procedure even though generous beyond the requirements that bind such agency, that procedure must be scrupulously observed. This judicially evolved rule of administrative law is now fairly established and if I may act rightly so he that takes procedural sword shall perish with that sword.
35. Therefore, not adhering to these principles and examining a new witness without giving a notice to the plaintiff, the inquiry officer has clearly violated the provisions of Rule 14 (15) CCS (CCA) Rules.
Suit No. 342/06 16 of 22
36. Even otherwise whether, in the absence of the testimonies of these witnesses, the EO would have reached at the same conclusion or not, was not to be decided by this court. Therefore, I find that examination of the witnesses whose names were not mentioned in the list of witnesses and the notice of whose examination was never given to the plaintiff vitiated the proceedings.
37. The fourth contention on behalf of the plaintiff is, that the inquiry officer flouted the procedure by examining the defence witnesses prior to the conclusion of the prosecution evidence and thereafter, again examining some prosecution witnesses.
38. It is evident from the inquiry proceedings that on 03.01.1998, a prosecution witness Sh. K.S Yadav was examined and thereafter, the inquiry officer summoned and examined a defence witness namely Kamaljeet Bhatt. Thereafter, again on 01.02.1998, prosecution witnesses M.D. Ramtek, S.K. Jha, M.K. Nayak, B.K. Sharma and Majoj Kumar were examined. Thereafter, again on 25.04.1998, prosecution witness Garib Singh was examined.
39. The inquiry officer has followed the procedure unknown to judicial or quasi judicial proceedings. He examined certain prosecution witnesses and, in between he called the defence witnesses and examined them and then he again examined the prosecution witnesses. This is in Suit No. 342/06 17 of 22 violation of Rule 14 (16) & (17) of CCS (CCA) Rules. The rule 14 (16) & 17 are being reproduced as under: 14(16): When the case for the disciplinary authority is closed, the Government servant shall be required to state his defence, orally or in writing, as he may prefer. If the defence is made orally, it shall be recorded and the Government servant shall be required to sign the record. In either case, a copy of the statement of defence shall be given to the Presenting Officer, if any, appointed. 14(17): The evidence on behalf of the government servant shall then be produced. The Government servant may examine himself in hi own behalf if he so prefers. The witnesses produced by the Government servant shall then be examined and shall be liable to cross examination, re examination and examination by the inquiring authority according to the provisions applicable to the witnesses for the disciplinary authority.
40. A bare reading of these rules clearly show that a government servant under inquiry has to be asked to state his defence after the case for the disciplinary authority is closed and thereafter, the evidence on behalf of the government servant under inquiry has to be produced whereupon he could examine witnesses in his defence.
41. Thus, in the present case, evidence of the member of the force i.e. the plaintiff could only have been recorded after the prosecution evidence or the evidence of the disciplinary authority had been closed. Therefore, here again, I find that the inquiry officer has misconducted the inquiry.
Suit No. 342/06 18 of 22
42. The fifth contention on behalf of the plaintiff is, that the inquiry was illegally closed on 12.05.1998 without giving an opportunity of defence to the plaintiff by fixing another date.
43. The contention on behalf of the respondent is that sufficient notice was given to the plaintiff. A notice was sent to the plaintiff at his residential address and was received by the plaintiff on 30.04.1998. Despite the same, the plaintiff did not join the proceedings and thus, exparte proceedings were conducted.
44. DW1 has deposed that an inquiry notice dated 23.04.1998 was issued to the plaintiff at his residential address in which the inquiry date was fixed as 12.05.1998. The plaintiff had received this notice on 30.04.1998 but he did not attend the inquiry proceedings due to long OSL and thus, the statement of Deputy Commandant P. K. Sharma was recorded in absence of the plaintiff. This testimony of DW1 has been entirely unrebutted. Therefore, I find that the notice to participate in the inquiry proceedings on 12.05.1998 was served upon the plaintiff on 30.04.1998. Therefore, the inquiry officer was well within his rights to conduct the proceedings and record evidence in absence of the plaintiff.
45. However, the inquiry officer misconducted the inquiry when he examined a witness namely Sh. P.K. Sharma, Deputy Commandant, whose name was neither mentioned in the list of witnesses for the Suit No. 342/06 19 of 22 department nor a notice of examination of this witness was given to the plaintiff as per rules provided under CCS (CCA) Rules.
46. It is also to be seen that in the ordersheet dated 12.05.1998 of the inquiry proceedings, it has nowhere been recorded firstly, that the plaintiff had been proceeded exparte and secondly, that the inquiry had been closed. This again remains to be in violation of the procedure. I say so because even when the plaintiff for his non appearance had been proceeded exparte and therefore, he had a right to present his case by way of oral submissions and a date should have been fixed for the same. The inquiry officer failed to do so and the same stands in violation of rule 14 (19) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
47. I must also note that it was in a very hurried manner that the IO (EO) proceeded to give his findings within three days of the prosecution evidence being concluded and that too, when going against the procedure, he had already recorded the defence witnesses and had recorded one witness behind the back of the plaintiff, who was not even named in the list of witnesses supplied to the plaintiff. This entire circumstance if seen in the light of the fact that the plaintiff has claimed that he was badly beaten and had suffered injuries due to the same and that despite requests, he was not medically examined, makes the entire proceedings all the more vitiated.
48. I say so, because the plaintiff has filed on record a medical Suit No. 342/06 20 of 22 prescription Ex.P2A/PW2. It shows injuries sustained by the plaintiff. He has also filed a medical certificate mark M2 issued by Gandhi Medical College, Bhopal which shows that the plaintiff was advised a rest of seven days.
49. DW2 has admitted that after the incident, the plaintiff remained on medical leave. It is the reason stated by the defence witness for not asking the plaintiff to participate in the preliminary inquiry. Despite these facts, it is surprising, that no medical examination of the plaintiff was got conducted. It is more surprising in the light of the testimony of DW1 where he stated that generally in a case of intoxication on duty, the department gets the medical examination conducted and as per the record, no medical examination of the plaintiff was conducted. Why the medical examination of a member of force, against whom there were allegation of coming in office under the influence of alcohol and entering into a fight with his Sr. officers and abusing them has been levelled, had not been conducted. It has also not been explained that why after over powering the plaintiff instead of taking him for medical examination, the superior officer of the plaintiff decided to keep the plaintiff in unofficial custody. Therefore, I find that the procedure was being violated from the very beginning.
50. In view of my above discussions, I find that there have been many violations of procedural laws as well as violations of rights available Suit No. 342/06 21 of 22 to the plaintiff as a member of force being inquired in respect of charge memorandum issued to him. All these violations combined together clearly show that the inquiry proceedings were vitiated and the principles of natural justice were flouted by the inquiry officer.
51. Thus, I find that the inquiry which was conducted was vitiated because of the reasons stated above. Thus, the inquiry report dated 03.07.1998 and the order dated 18.05.1999 passed by the appellate authority are liable to be quashed and the plaintiff is entitled to the relief sought. The issues no. 2 and 3 are disposed of accordingly.
RELIEF
52. In view of the above discussions, the suit of the plaintiff is decreed. The inquiry report dated 03.07.1998 and the resulting action of the disciplinary authority are hereby quashed. The plaintiff is ordered to be reinstated in the service from the date of his dismissal with all consequential reliefs. However, the department shall be at liberty to conduct a fresh inquiry as per the procedure if it deems fit. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly. No order as to cost. File be consigned to the record room.
Announced in open Court (PARVEEN SINGH) on 04.07.2013. Senior Civil Judge cum Rent (This judgment contains 22 pages Controller (Central), and each paper bears my signature.) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi. Suit No. 342/06 22 of 22