A division judge bench of the Justice Vipin Sanghi and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe of Uttarakhand HC has dismissed the writ petition filed by the constable on ground of irregularity in the procedure adopted during departmental enquiry and upheld his termination as he failed to point out any prejudice that is caused to him.
Facts:
The appellant was serving as a Constable in the Police. On 11.04.2009, one FIR was registered against him under Sections 376, 420, 307 and 506 IPC. The appellant, with a view to get out of the charge got his marriage registered with the victim on 28.04.2009 and on that premise the said criminal case was compounded. On the basis of the complaint made by the victim, an enquiry was initiated against the appellant. The victim appeared in the proceedings and he repeatedly given the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the department and also to lead his own evidence, if he so desires. The appellant did neither.
The present special appeal is directed against the detailed judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge in WPSS No.1300 of 2011 preferred by the appellant. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the said writ petition and declined to interfere with the order of termination dated 09.03.2010 as well as the orders dated 16.09.2010 and 30.07.2011, passed in the revision and the appeal respectively, post the termination of the appellant’s services on 09.03.2010. The said orders dismissed the challenge to the termination
Observations of the Court:
The court observed that even after the statements of the departmental witnesses were recorded, the appellant was again given the opportunity and asked whether he would like to cross-examine the witnesses of the department, and lead his own evidence and also to make his submission. To all such opportunities, the response of the appellant was in the negative. In opinion of this court law has progressed and mere pointing irregularity in conduct of the departmental enquiry, and denial of principles of natural justice were not considered sufficient and it is necessary to show what what is the prejudice suffered by the charged officer, even if, there are some irregularities in the procedure adopted in the conduct of the departmental proceedings.
The appellant hardly contested the disciplinary proceedings. He neither cross-examined the departmental witnesses, including the complainant, nor led his own evidence. He also did not avail of the opportunity to make his submissions. On the other hand, the evidence of the department was sufficient to find the appellant guilty of the charges levelled against him.
Therefore, the court concluded that there is no prejudice caused to the appellant and the position would be no different even if the matter will be remanded back as in the writ-petition, the appellant has not disclosed as to what is it that he would have stated before the Disciplinary Authority to say that he was not guilty of the charge levelled against him, which would have made a difference in the finding of guilt arrived at against him by the Disciplinary Authority.
Decision:
The writ petition was dismissed in view of the finding that no prejudice has been caused to the appellant and rules of procedure cannot be exploited by a person-such as the appellant, to defeat justice.
Case: Subhash Chandra vs State of Uttarakhand and others
Citation: Special Appeal No.450 of 2021
Coram: Justice Vipin Sanghi and Ramesh Chandra Khulbe
Dated: 18.10.2022
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com:
Picture Source :
