Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(8) It is not necessary that the Disciplinary authority should discuss material in detail and contest the conclusions of the Inquiry Office.

(9) The judicial review is extended only when there is no evidence or the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached on the basis of the material available.

22. Now this Court has to consider the facts of this case in the light of legal exposition of law as discussed above. The facts borne out from the record and the pleadings of the parties are that the petitioners at the relevant time were posted at Police Line, Saharanpur. They were assigned the duty of transporting a notorious undertrial accused, Rashid from District Jail, Saharanpur to Tis Hazari Court, Delhi on 27.4.2001. While coming back at about 12.30, in the night of 28.4.2001, near Deoband, the said accused jumped out from the running train alongwith handcuffs and rope at a place which was 10-15 k.m. from Deoband. The escape of the said accused from the custody of the petitioner is not disputed. In the reply submitted by the petitioners they have admitted that the said accused escaped from their custody. However, the circumstances in which he got escaped sought to be explained by them submitting that at about 12.30 p.m., he desired to attend his call of nature and both the petitioners while carrying him to the toilet in the train compartment, when reached near the door, he pushed Constable, Baburam who fell upon constable, Subhash Chandra who was behind the former and at that moment the accused ran away by jumping out from the compartment of the train. Since it was mid night and there was dark, they tried to shot him but since nothing was visible outside the running train, they could not open fire. The train stopped at about 12.45 at Deoband railway station where both petitioners got down and thereafter came back to the place where the said accused has escaped and tried to search him out for whole of the night but could not find any clue and ultimately on the next date i.e. 29.4.2001 at about 1.30 p.m. lodged report at Police Station Deoband. Therefore, it is not a case where the allegation made against the petitioners that on account of their dereliction of duty and gross negligence a notorious undertrial prisoner escaped from their custody is a fact which is disputed by them but the only scope for inquiry was whether the petitioners took such precautions as expected from a trained police personnel escorting under-trial prisoner and therefore whether they were guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty or not. The petitioners thus having admitted the escape of the prisoner from their custody, there was no occasion for the department thereafter to prove the charge any further as such but the onus thereafter shifted upon the petitioners to show that undertrial prisoner did not escape on account of their gross negligence and dereliction of duty but they took all possible precautionary steps which ought to have been taken by a person well trained to discharge similar kind of duty, yet the under-trial escaped and thus it was not a case where the incident took place on account of gross negligence or dereliction of duty on the part of the petitioners. The petitioners except of submitting their reply and stating the facts as I have already narrated above, did not produce any other material on record to show that they took all possible precautionary steps as expected from them while discharging the said duty. The three out of five witnesses produced by the department in the oral inquiry mainly sought to prove the fact that the petitioners were assigned with the duty of escorting an undertrial prisoner from Saharanpur Jail to Tis Hazari Court, New Delhi and from their custody the said undertrial prisoner ran way. The fourth witness namely, Arun Kumar Sirohi, the then Inspector proved his report dated 30.4.2001 which was in respect of the said incident which he reported to the higher authorities. The last witness namely, Baburam, Circle Officer, sought to prove his preliminary inquiry report. He sought to find out whether the petitioners were prima facie guilty of dereliction of duty and gross negligence. After receiving the chargesheet, since the incident was admitted by the petitioners themselves in their own reply and they did not dispute that fact, it is understandable that they did not find any reason to cross examine the aforesaid witnesses. The only aspect which thereafter has to be considered is whether the petitioners were guilty of gross negligence and dereliction of duty. For the said purpose onus lie on the petitioners and they had to show by proper explanation and evidence, if any, that they took all possible precautionary steps which were expected from a well trained person assigned the aforesaid kind of duty. Since the petitioners did not provide any such kind of explanation and no material placed to prove it, the inquiry officer therefore, did not commit any error in holding them guilty and I do not find any fault in the manner he has conducted inquiry and submitted his report.

foHkkxh; dk;Zokgh ihBklhu vf/kdkjh Jh iq"id T;ksfr] vij iqfyl v/kh{kd ¼xzkeh.k½ }kjk lEikfnr dh x;h ftlesa vkidks drZO;ikyu esa ykijokgh dk nks"kh ik;k x;k D;ksfd is'kh ds mijkUr okil ykSVrs le; mDr vfHkqDr vkidh vfHkj{kk ls gFkdM+h o jLls lfgr Vsªu ls dwn dj Hkkx x;k A vfHk;qDr jkf'kn ds iqfyl vfHkj{kk ls Hkkx tkus ds lEcU/k es iw.kZRk% vkidh ykijokgh fl) gS ,oa blds fy, vki iw.kZr% nks"kh gS A

28. Thereafter he issued a show cause notice affording an opportunity to the petitioners to show cause as to why they should not be dismissed from service by referring to Sub-rule 4(1 )(a) of Rule 8 of 1991 Rules. This part of the show cause notice sent by the S.S.P. Saharanpur itself shows his disagreement in respect to the quantum of punishment recommended by the inquiry officer and gave opportunity to the petitioner to submit his explanation. When the disciplinary authority referred to the relevant statutory provision which requires imposition of penalty of dismissal in a matter where charge of escape of a person from police custody on account of negligence of police officer of subordinate rank found proved reference to the rule itself amounts reason for disagreeing with the recommendation of the inquiry officer with respect to punishment and it was not necessary for the disciplinary authority to give more detailed reasons like a judgement. The petitioners in their reply have reiterated the story which they submitted in reply after receiving the charge sheet and there is no difference in the version. From the reply of the petitioners it is evident that they did not exercise their due caution and precaution expected from a person of ordinary prudence working in a police force and assigned with the aforesaid kind of duty. Both the petitioners have said that the undertrial prisoner forcibly pushed Baburam who fell on Subhash Chandra, another petitioner, and in the mean time he jumped out from the running train and ran away. This shows that the accused was walking in front and both the petitioners were behind him. In normal course two constables are assigned duty when an undertrial prisoner is sent to attend the court and both the constables should move by keeping undertrial prisoner in the middle. Had this normal precaution been taken by the petitioners, even if one of the constable would have been pushed away, the situation as tried to be explained by the petitioners would not have arisen. Further they have said that the incident took place in the mid night at about 12.30 p.m. It is not their case that before allowing the undertrail prisoner to attend his call of nature the door of the train compartment was ensured as locked by them. Had it been observed, the accused person would not have been able to get enough time facilitating his easy and uninterrupted escape. The next reason but not the least is that there is no explanation of the petitioners that they tried to stop the train immediately when undertrial prisoner jumped out of the running train and on the contrary they did not take any further action for about 15 minutes and the train travelled about 10-15 k.m. and when it reached Deoband Station, then the petitioners came down and came back to the place where the said prisoner has escaped. In substance, it cannot be said that the authorities acted arbitrarily recording a finding of fact which can be said to be perverse. Moreover the disciplinary, appellate and revisional authorities are the Senior Police Officers and are well versed with the kind of the activities as were involved in the case in hand and could have very well assessed the fact as to whether a member of the disciplined force has shown negligence and it is not an error of judgement or an act which has occurred despite due diligence and bonafide action of the concerned person. Hence in my view it cannot be said that the disciplinary authority in any manner erred in law by issuing show cause notice proposing punishment of dismissal and ultimately in imposing the said punishment and the same is not vitiated in law merely for the reason that it was a severe punishment different from that proposed by the inquiry officer.