* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ WP(C) No. 1466/2016
% Date of Decision: 26th February, 2016
RAJVIR SINGH ...Petitioner
Through : Mr.Prakash Chandra, Advocate
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ...Respondents
Through :
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J.
1. Rajvir Singh, the petitioner was issued charge-sheet dated 8th May, 2000 on the following charge:
"While working under Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Tughlakabad on 09.07.1999 at about 9.30 a.m. when Shri A.K.Garg, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Tughlakabad had reached at Loco shed, committed misconduct of beating him and attacked him by throwing his chappal (sleepers) on his head & abused him and threatened to kill him."WP(C) 1466/2016 Page 1 of 6
2. The enquiry officer came to the conclusion that the article of charge was not proved and was in fact, fabricated. The disciplinary authority disagreed and issued a disagreement note and after considering the petitioner's reply and relying on material on record, imposed penalty of removal from service with effect from 2nd September, 2003. The appellant authority by its order dated 3rd February, 2004, preferred to take a sympathetic view and directed that the petitioner should be reinstated in service on minimum pay, and directed withholding of increments for two years without permanent effect.
3. The petitioner did not challenge the aforesaid order of the appellate authority. Thus, the same has attained finality.
4. A criminal case was also instituted against the petitioner and other employees of Electric Locoshed, Western Railway, Tughlakabad, New Delhi vide FIR No.409/1999 registered at Police Station Okhla Industrial Area, under Sections 323/341/186/353 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 on the allegation that they had demonstrated, shouted slogans and in furtherance of their common intention, wrongfully restrained / confined officers of the loco-shed and that they used criminal force to obstruct public servants from discharging their WP(C) 1466/2016 Page 2 of 6 duties. The petitioner it was alleged had physically assaulted Ashok Kumar Garg, Senior Divisional Electrical Engineer (TRS), Tughlakabad. The prosecution lingered on and had remained pending for more than 10 years, before being decided by the judgment dated 15.09.2010. Ashok Kumar Garg, who had appeared as PW-3, testified and affirmed slogan shouting by a mob who had also indulged in beating the doors and disrupting work. He and his colleagues were confined in his room since morning and power supply of the administration block was switched off. This had resulted in delay in outage of locomotives on line for working trains. It is, however, highlighted that A.K. Garg did not state that the accused were the persons involved or a part of the mob. Other witnesses had also testified about the occurrence, but did not identify the accused as the persons responsible. In view of the aforesaid evidence, the Metropolitan Magistrate by his judgment dated 15th September, 2010, held that it could not be established with certainty that the accused facing prosecution were involved in the incident and had wrongly confined the public servants. The prosecution must strictly prove the offence alleged and had failed to do so and accordingly, the accused WP(C) 1466/2016 Page 3 of 6 including the petitioner, were acquitted from the charges giving them benefit of doubt.
5. Encouraged by this order of acquittal, the petitioner made a representation dated 9th May, 2011, stating that he should be exonerated from all charges levelled against him in the disciplinary proceedings and the entire period, subject matter of the order of penalty, should be treated as spent on duty with consequential benefits. By letter dated 16th November, 2011, the petitioner was informed that the period of removal from service, i.e., 2nd September, 2003 to 3rd February, 2004 when he was reinstated pursuant to the decision taken by the appellate authority, has been treated as dies non in terms of Rule 1343 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (FR-
54).
6. We would observe that this letter dated 16th November, 2011 merely reiterated the earlier decision dated 3rd February, 2004, and the effect of the said reinstatement in terms of Rule 1343 of the Indian Railway Establishment Code (FR-54). It did not constitute a fresh cause of action or impose any new penalty. However, the request that the order of penalty should be revisited was rejected.
WP(C) 1466/2016 Page 4 of 6
7. Reading of the disciplinary authority's order would indicate that the said authority while imposing punishment, had recorded that the petitioner had accepted in his statement before Ex- Enquiry Officer Dr A.M.Saxena on 4th January, 2001, that physical quarrel had taken place between him and A.K Garg and that he had beaten A.K. Garg with his slipper, when the latter had protested and asked him not to use the open area as a bathroom. It is obvious that orders, subject matter of the disciplinary proceedings, had proceeded on their own facts and evidence on record. Moreover, the standard of proof in criminal and disciplinary proceedings is different. In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof required is preponderance of probabilites, whereas in a criminal case, the charge has to be proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. Evidence adduced and produced by the parties in each proceeding - departmental, civil or criminal has to be examined independently. Admissions made by witnesses in the other proceeding can be confronted. Thus there is no incongruity in the two proceedings. In criminal proceedings, evidence which is inadmissible as per the Evidence Act has to be excluded. Albeit, in a departmental WP(C) 1466/2016 Page 5 of 6 proceeding, such evidence/material may be accepted and taken on record and considered.
8. Counsel for the petitioner has relied upon Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. And Anr. (1999) 3 SCC 679, which we perceive and specifically records, was decided on its own peculiar facts. This decision pertinently notices the distinction between nature of evidence and nature of proof in departmental proceedings and criminal proceedings.
9. In the factual matrix of the present case, we do not think there is any ground or reason to interfere with the impugned order dated 16th September, 2015 passed by the tribunal, dismissing OA.No.37/2012 and order dated 6th November, 2015 dismissing RA.No.280/2015.
(SANJIV KHANNA) JUDGE (NAJMI WAZIRI) JUDGE February 26th, 2016 ssn WP(C) 1466/2016 Page 6 of 6