Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bahadur Singh And Another vs Chandigarh Administration And Others on 21 May, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 9662-CAT of 2008
Date of Decision: 21.05.2014
Bahadur Singh and another ..Petitioners
Versus
Chandigarh Administration and others ..Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present : Mr. Arun Kondal, Advocate, for
Mr. Puneet Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Shekhar Verma, Standing Counsel for U.T. Admn./
respondents.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL C.J. (Oral)
The petitioners (i.e. petitioner No.1 Head Constable and petitioner No.2 Constable) working with the Police Department, Chandigarh, were on duty on 04.06.2003 at Sector 26, Transport Light Point, Chandigarh. One Shri Chaman Lal Gupta, resident of Dera Bassi, alongwith his son Pardeep Gupta was going to P.G.I. via the said point on his Motor Cycle at 10.15 A.M. when he was stopped by the traffic police for the offence of crossing the stop line. The petitioners are alleged to have accepted a bribe of ` 100/- from the complainants for letting the vehicle go without any challan and also alleged to have used un-parliamentary language. The complaint was verified through Inspector I.S.Mann and the complainants identified the petitioners on the very next day in a parade held. As per the Duty Roster, it was these officials who were at the duty spot.
The aforesaid incident resulted in departmental enquiry where evidence was led and opportunity given to cross-examine the witnesses. The Enquiry Officer in terms of the enquiry report dated Sharma Ravinder 04.05.2004 found the petitioners guilty of the charges leveled 2014.05.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 9662 of 2008 2 against them. The Disciplinary Authority issued a notice to them as to why punishment of stoppage of two annual increments with permanent effect be not imposed upon them. The petitioners submitted a reply. The Disciplinary Authority took a lenient view in the matter and awarded punishment by reducing it to stoppage of one annual increment with permanent effect in terms of the order dated 08.06.2004.
The petitioners preferred an appeal before the Inspector General of Police which was dismissed on 29.07.2004 and the revision petition before the Home Secretary, Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh also received the same fate on 26.07.2005.
The petitioners thereafter filed Original Application No. 966-CH-2005 before the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh which was dismissed on 10.07.2007. It is this order which is assailed before us in the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
The aforesaid facts, in our view, thus show that qua this incident there have been multiple scrutinies before the Disciplinary Authority, First Appellate Authority, Revisional Authority and thereafter before the Central Administrative Tribunal. Thus, the present proceedings are really in the nature of fifth scrutiny about the morning activity of the petitioners of being involved in demand of bribe on a red light point.
It is trite to say that this Court will not sit as a Court of appeal over the findings in the departmental proceedings to reappraise the evidence. Of course, if it is case of no evidence, this Court is not precluded from interference (Kuldeep Singh v. Sharma Ravinder 2014.05.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 9662 of 2008 3 Commissioner of Police and others 1999(2) Supreme Court Cases 10). It has also been explained in Sher Bahadur v. Union of India and others 2002(7) Supreme Court Cases 142 that the expression 'sufficiency of evidence' postulates existence of some evidence which links charged officers with the misconduct alleged against him. It is in the conspectus of these tests that we have to scrutinize the submissions made by learned counsels for the parties.
Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks to assail the impugned order alleging that it is a case of 'no evidence'. This plea is predicated on the statements of the complainants and their cross-examination during enquiry proceedings. The manner of the incident has been affirmed in the testimony of the complainants as also the payment of the bribe. It, however, appears that despite having identified the petitioners on the very next day after the incident, in the departmental proceedings the complainants lend a helping hand to the petitioners by claiming that they were not the two persons who took the bribe.
The findings of the Inquiry Officer are based on the fact that as per the duty roster it was the petitioners alone who were on duty. The incident was not denied. There was no other police official who could have indulged in the mis-conduct. The mere statement that there was a police Gypsy standing away from the spot could not be said to amount to the presence of other police officials when no details in this behalf appeared in the evidence. In our view, if it was a case where the petitioners' contention was that there was some other official who may have taken the bribe, they could have asked for production of any duty roster to substantiate the plea or at least identify as to who was the so called offical. The Sharma Ravinder 2014.05.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 9662 of 2008 4 written complaint made by the complainants Ex.PW4/1 was on the very next day after the incident i.e. 05.06.2003 and on the same day the police authorities took due care to make the complainants identify the police officials. The complainants identified the petitioners.
It may also be noticed that in view of the aforesaid identification, the petitioners were transferred from Traffic Staff to VIP Security as a consequence of the complaint. This record proved has not met with any cross-examination.
We cannot lose sight of the fact that the matter in issue is not a criminal trial. The issue is qua probity of the police officers who are performing important public duties. If they take bribe and leave the people, it sends a wrong signal. The material on record was sufficient to link the petitioners unequivocally to the incident and a belatedly about turn by the complainants in respect of their identification cannot nullify the departmental proceedings against the petitioners when there is sufficient other material on record to link the petitioners with the incident resulting in the findings against them.
The second aspect assailed by learned counsel for the petitioners is the absence of reasons by the Appellate Authority which is pleaded to be mandatory in view of the judgment of the learned Single Judge of this Court in Paramjit Singh, Ex. Head Constable v. State of Punjab 1995(8) S.L.R. 741.
In the context of the aforesaid plea, it has to be kept in mind that the Appellate Authority is not a judicial forum penning down the judgment. It is in that context that the order has to be scrutinized. As long as the reasons for formation of the opinion are available from the order of the Appellate Authority, it would suffice. Sharma Ravinder 2014.05.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP No. 9662 of 2008 5 A reading of the order of the Appellate Authority shows that this test is satisfied. All the important facts have been noticed, reasoned conclusion recorded, brief as it may be.
There is also another aspect of this matter. The petitioners approached the Tribunal which had examined all the aspects in depth. The Tribunal also took note of the fact that if the enquiry report as a whole was sought to be assailed, the same should have been challenged but the petitioners never chose to impugn the enquiry report but only the order of punishment. This really amounted to accepting the findings of the enquiry report. Be that as it may the manner of findings having been arrived at by the Enquiry Officer has still been gone into.
We are of the view that even qua the issue of punishment, the Disciplinary Authority has been more than considerate as in the matters of lack of integrity normal punishment is dismissal from service.
We thus find no reason to interfere in exercise of our extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Dismissed.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 21.05.2014 'ravinder' Sharma Ravinder 2014.05.22 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document