Udhha Lal Meena vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2002 Latest Caselaw 558 Del

JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, C.J.

1. This writ petition is directed against a judgment and order dated 29 th May 2000 passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench in OA 1372/99 whereby and whereunder the Original Application filed by the petitioner was dismissed. The short facts leading to the passing of the said order are as follows:

The petitioner was charge-sheeted on an allegation that on 1 st March 1998 at about 4.00 PM, he under the influence of liquor, started beating and abusing Constable Satbir Singh who was returning from duty, without any cause or provocation, as a result whereof, latter sustained injuries. Thereafter, the petitioner reached the Reporting Room and started shouting unnecessarily while he was under the influence of liquor. He was medically examined in the hospital where the doctor opined vide MLC 001764 (smell of alcohol). The afore-mentioned Constable Satbir Singh had also been medically examined in that hospital when the doctor opined his injury as simple and blunt. In relation to the afore-mentioned charges, disciplinary proceedings were initiated wherein the enquiry officer in his report dated 18THAugust 1998 found the charges to have been proved.

2. The petitioner was furnished with a copy of the said enquiry report in relation whereto again he filed his written reply on 16THSeptember 1998 wherein inter alia he stated that he would not want to say anything in defense except what he had already stated in his defense statement during disciplinary enquiry. The disciplinary authority, on the basis of the material on record and in agreement with the findings of the enquiry officer held that the misconduct committed by the petitioners was serious and, thus, he was not fit to be retained in government service particularly in a disciplined force like Delhi Police. Pursuant whereto and in furtherance whereof, by reason of order dated 14THNovember 1998, he imposed a punishment of dismissal of service upon the petitioner. An appeal filed thereagainst by the petitioner was dismissed by the appellate authority on 20THApril 1999.

3. The petitioner moved the Central Administrative Tribunal by filing the said application in terms of Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunal Act. Before the learned Tribunal, the petitioner had urged various grounds as noticed by the learned Tribunal, which are:

"(i) absence of applicant at the relevant time and place of the incident; (ii) that he was not under the influence of liquor; (iii) the concerned doctor was not examined during the D.E. to prove the M.C.; (iv) contradictions in the statements of witnesses; (v) non-examination of Constable Nahar Singh as a P.W.; (vi) non-summoning of Nahar Singh as a D.W.; (vii) preliminary enquiry not conducted; (viii) prejudice on the part of the E.O. and (ix) non-adherence to Rules 8 and 10 Delhi Police (P&A) Rules."

4. The learned Tribunal, upon consideration of the material on record, held that having regard to the standard of proof required for proving the charge in departmental proceedings, it had amply been proved that the petitioner had committed the said misconduct.

5. Mr. Arun Bhardwaj, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner would submit that although in the list of witnesses, the names of the doctors who had allegedly examined the petitioner had been mentioned, but they were not examined and in that view of the matter, the medical reports whereupon the enquiry officer based his reports, could not be said to have been proved. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel has relied upon a decision of this court in Mohinder Singh v. Union of India and Ors., 1998 VI AD (Delhi) 440. The learned counsel would also contend that one of the witnesses namely Nahar Singh had also not been examined either as a departmental witness or court witness. The learned counsel would contend that the requisite Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules having not been complied with, the learned Tribunal must be held to have committed a serious error in passing the impugned order.

6. Mr. George Paracken, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, would submit that the learned Tribunal has rightly held that the sufficiency of evidence cannot be a ground for interfering with a disciplinary enquiry proceeding.

7. The charge levelled against the petitioner was as follows:

"CHARGE

I, Shiv Raj Singh ACP/CAW Cell, West Distt. New Delhi, charge you const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W [PIS No. 28910094] while posted in PS Punjabi Bagh West Distt. New Delhi with the following charge. On 1.3.98 SI Raj Pal Singh posted in reporting room of PS Punjabi Bagh sent a report that while he was present in reporting room of PS Punjabi Bagh Const. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG posted at PS Punjabi Bagh that he Along with picket No. 77, West Bengal Bagh from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. At about 4.05 p.m. when he was going back home after performing his duty, suddenly you const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W met him on the way near road No. 77, West Punjabi Bagh. You were under the influence of liquor and started abusing and beating him Const. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG without any cause of provocation, with the result Const. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG sustained injuries. Later on while at reporting room (PS Punjabi Bagh) you again started shouting unnecessarily. As you were under influence of liquor, you were taken to DDU Hospital for medical examination, and the MO after getting you examined opined as 'Smell of Alcohol' ++ vide MLC No. 001764 dated 01-03-98. Likewise Const. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG was also got medically examined of his injuries in DDU Hospital. The MO opined about the nature of injuries as 'simple blunt' vide MLC No. 1837-E- 14431 dt. 1.3.98.

The above act on the part of you Const. Udai Lal No. 1882/W amounts to gross misconduct, negligence unbecoming of a police officer for which you are liable to be dealt with departmentally under the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules- 1980.

Approved

Sd/-             

Asstt. Commissioner of Police, CAW Cell West Distt. Delhi.

E.O.             

Addl. DCP-I/West."

8. In the departmental proceedings, Satbir Singh was examined as PW1. His evidence, as noticed by the enquiry officer, is in the following terms:

"The PW stated that he was deployed to perform duty in P.S. Punjabi Bagh. On 1.3.98 he was deputed for duty from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. with const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W P.S. Punjabi Bagh at picket road No. 77, West Punjabi Bagh. On the same day at about 9.10 a.m. a const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W came to the picket, where he was performing his duty. Const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W started drinking at the picket. After some time he asked me to bring some food for him, which he(ct. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG) did. He also asked const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W to accompany him to a Jhuggi to take liquor but const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W did not agree. In the mean time const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W went to take food an came that about 3.30 p.m. and went in search of const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W. At about 4 p.m. const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W and const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W reached the picket in a Rickshaw. Const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W asked the Rickshaw wala to take const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W to P.S. Punjabi Bagh not to go to P.S. Punjabi Bagh, since he was under influence of liquor. On this Const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W caught hold his neck and starting beating. Const. Nahar Singh No. 753/W did not intereon inspite of request, nor he flash any message in this regard to the P.S. Punjabi Bagh. In the mean time he requested a scootrist to stop and after a resistance by const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W. He (ct. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG) reached the house of HSPO with that scooter wala. He rang P.S. Punjabi Bagh and come back to the picket. Where he saw const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W sleeping inside the picket. He (ct. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG) started to go to the P.S. Punjabi Bagh. While he was in front of picket Punjabi Bagh Club. He notice const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W following him. He started quarrelling with a Home Guard Const. There who was on duty at the club check post, he on finding on opportunity whisked away and reached to P.S. Punjabi Bagh and reported the matter to the SHO and ACP/Punjabi Bagh who were there present. It was about 5.30 p.m. where at P.S. Punjabi Bagh SI Raj Pal Singh recorded his statement. (Ex. PW- 2/D) dated 1.3.98 and he got him examined medically at DDU Hospital Hari Nagar, New Delhi."

9. The petitioner cross-examined the said witness. He merely suggested that his statement was baseless and false which was answered in the negative. Before the Enquiry Office, Shri Raj Pal Singh, SI was also examined.

The said witness was not cross-examined by the petitioner at all. The Enquiry Officer noticed:

"The SI stated that he was on emergency duty from 8 a.m. to 8 p.m. in the PS Punjabi Bagh. He recorded statement of const. Satbir Singh No. 10139/DHG (Ex. PW-2/D) dated 1.3.98. He got both constables Satbir Singh Co. 10139/DHG and const. Udai Lal No. 1822/W medically examined in the DDU Hospital vide DD No. 16-A dated 1.3.98 (Ex. PW-3/B) vide their MLC No. 001764 dated 1.3.98 and 1837-E-14431 dated 1.3.98 respectively (Ex.PW-2/B) and (Ex. PW-2/C). He prepared a report of the facts (Ex. PW-2/A) dated 1.3.98 and submitted it to the SHO Punjabi Bagh for further necessary action. The defaulter was given full opportunities to cross the PW, but he did not wish."

10. Before the Enquiry Officer the Inspector Satya Prakash and Constable Ashok Kumar had also been examined.

11. It is true that Dr. Alok and Dr. Rajiv Gupta who examined Constable Satbir Singh and Constable Udai Lal, did not attend the enquiry proceeding but upon consideration of the materials on record, the Enquiry Officer came to the following conclusion:

"4. I have carefully gone through the finding submitted by the EO statement of PWs defense statement and other relevant record available on file. Defaulter ct. has taken pleas in his defense statement that DHG Satbir Singh No. 10139 /DHG had borrowed Rs. 500/- from him, he did not return his money and also made complaint against him, has no weightage as the defaulter ct. did not raise this money matter during the cross of PW (1) i.e. DHG Satbir Singh, No. 10139 /DHG and this facts seems to be an after thought to prepare a unreasonable defense. There is no doubt that defaulter ct. consumed the liquor and beat the DHG mercilessly under the influence of liquor. The charges levelled against the defaulter const. have been proved during proceedings. This is a serious misconduct on his part, hence he is not fit to be retained in Govt. service particularly in disciplined force like Delhi Police. Thereafter, I S.K. Gautam, Addl. DCP/West Distt., New Delhi, hereby, order to dismiss const. Udhha Lal No. 1822/ W from service with immediate."

12. In departmental proceedings, the provisions of the Evidence Act have no application. The charges are not required to be proved beyond any reasonable doubt. Preponderance of probability would serve the purpose. It is also well settled that the court or the Tribunal is concerned with the sufficiency of evidence. An order imposing punishment can be interfered with only if the disciplinary authority commits illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the decision-making process.

13. Although the doctors had not been examined, the fact that the petitioner had taken liquor and assaulted the said Satbir Singh, has been proved.

14. So far as non-examination of Nahar Singh is concerned, the same, in the opinion of this court, did not vitiate the entire departmental proceedings. It may be true that the petitioner had raised the said question before the appellate authority and the appellate authority had also noticed the said contention but therein also it was merely alleged:

"(c) There is no evidence to corroborate the statement of DHG Satbir Singh in as much as that constable Nahar Singh has not been examined either as a P.W. or C.W., when according to statement of D.H.G. there are many points at which constable Nahar Singh could have given his clarification."

15. How and to what extent the petitioner had been prejudiced by non- examination of Nahar Singh, has not been stated. Even such a contention had not been raised before the Tribunal.

16. As indicated hereinbefore, the petitioner even did not cross- examine the witnesses and even so far as Satbir Singh is concerned, he had only given some suggestion.

17. He even, although had been given an opportunity, refused to make his statement in defense, categorically stating before the disciplinary authority that he did not want to raise any further defense other than which had been raised before the Enquiry Officer. If the charges against the petitioner had been proved by bringing on record sufficient evidence, in our opinion, non-examination of the medical witnesses or Shri Nahar Singh by itself would not vitiate the disciplinary proceedings.

18. Having regard to the fact that PW1 categorically stated that the petitioner had consumed alcohol and he had assaulted him, in our opinion, even if the Medical Report to the effect that he was smelling liquor and PW1 Satbir Singh suffered injuries had not been proved, the same by itself would not lead to the conclusion that the petitioner had not committed the misconduct. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to consider the correctness or otherwise of the decision of a learned single Judge in Mahender Singh (supra).

19. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that the impugned order is also vitiated as no preliminary enquiry was conducted in terms of Rule 15 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980. Rule 15 of the said Rules reads thus:

"15. Preliminary enquiries. --(1) A preliminary enquiry is a fact finding enquiry. Its purpose is (i) to establish the nature of default and identity of defaulter(S), (ii) to collect prosecution evidence, (iii) to judge quantum of default and (iv) to bring relevant documents on record to facilitate a regular departmental enquiry. In cases where specific information covering the above-mentioned points exists a Preliminary Enquiry need not be held and Departmental enquiry may be ordered by the disciplinary authority straightaway. In all other cases a preliminary enquiry shall normally proceed a departmental enquiry.

(2) In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal cases should be registered and investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held.

(3) The suspected police officer may or may not be present at a preliminary enquiry but when present he shall not cross-examine the witness. The file of preliminary enquiry shall not form part of the formal departmental record, but statements there from may be brought on record of the departmental proceedings when the witnesses are no longer available. There shall be no bar to the Enquiry Officer bringing on record any other documents from the file of the preliminary enquiry, if he considers it necessary after supplying copies to the accused officer. All statements recorded during the preliminary enquiry shall be signed by the person making them and attested by enquiry officer."

20. A bare perusal of the said Rule would show that in a case where specific information covering the points necessary for holding a preliminary enquiry exists, the same may not be held having regard to the fact that the petitioner had been charge-sheeted on specific grounds on the allegations made by Satbir Singh which was followed by Medical Reports and, thus, no illegality had been committed by the disciplinary authority if the preliminary enquiry had not been directed to be made.

21. Having regard to the facts an circumstances in this case, we are of the opinion that no case has been made out for exercising our discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. For the reasons afore- mentioned, this writ petition, being devoid of any merits, is dismissed without any orders as to costs.