Mr. M.P. Sharma vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 50 Del

JUDGMENT

Vijender Jain, J.

1. Learned counsel for the petitioner has impugned the order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal dated 6th July, 2004. Contention of the petitioner before us is that in 1999, a decision was taken by the respondent to hold a joint enquiry against the petitioner as well as two Inspectors and once such a decision was taken by the respondent, the enquiry against the petitioner ought to have been joint with two Inspectors. It was contended that enquiry against petitioner alone cannot be conducted. It has also been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that even the advice of the CVC was for holding a joint enquiry and that advice under Article 317 of the Constitution is binding on the respondent. Lastly, it was submitted before us that the petitioner was called as a witness against the enquiry conducted against two Inspectors. Therefore, he will be prejudiced in his defense and it would be contrary to the rules of the respondent where co accused cannot be compelled to be witness against one's self. We have perused the order passed by the C.A.T. In paragraph 8 of the impugned order, it has been specifically mentioned that in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case when the mistake was detected that no enquiry was conducted jointly against the petitioner. A conscious decision was taken to initiate enquiry against the petitioner. The argument of the petitioner that on account of his being called as a witness and petitioner having deposed as a witness against the two Inspectors, he was compelled to depose as a co-accused is not correct when the petitioner gave evidence as a witness his testimony was not recorded as co-accused. Therefore, the reliance placed by the petitioner on the rules pertaining to the deposition of a witness who is a co-accused is not applicable in the present case.

2. In view of the Articles of Charges can it be said that enquiry to be initiated against the petitioner is bad in law. Charges are re-produced as under:-

"Article - I

That you Shri M.P. Sharma while functioning as DSP in CBI, ACU(VI) Branch, New Delhi during the months of May and June 1997 illegally entertained one Mr. Denzil Oconnell of F-13, Sec. 39, Noida, UP who had a civil dispute with one Mr. Carmichael Martin and at his instance threatened Inspectors H.M. Joshi and Rajesh Kumar of ACU (V) Branch of CBI, New Delhi by levelling allegations against them to have demanded Rs. 4.5 lakhs and Rs. 1.5 lakhs respectively as bribe from the said Denzil.

Article- II

Whereas during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office you Shri M.P. Sharma falsely told both the said Inspectors and some of their other colleagues that the said Denzil had met the DIG, AC II and had made a complaint against Inspectors H.M. Joshi and Rajesh Kumar of ACU(V) Branch of CBI, New Delhi to the DIG and the DIG had marked the said complaint to Shri M.P. Singh, SP, ACU(VI) who in turn had marked the said complaint to you for inquiry.

Article- III

Whereas during the aforesaid period and while functioning in the aforesaid office, you Shri M.P. Sharma misused a false entry made in the visitor's Register of the CBI office, Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi by the said Mr.Denzil in between serial numbers 7 & 8 under dated 30.5.1997 to have met Shri M.P. Singh, SP, ACU(VI) with a view to show the authenticity of Denzil having made complaint to the Senior Officers of CBI against Inspectors Rajesh Kumar and H.M. Joshi."

3. In view of aforesaid charges when there is a role assigned to the petitioner it is only after enquiry is conducted truth will come out therefore we can not stop the enquiry at the threshold.

4. If the respondent had taken a decision to initiate an enquiry against the petitioner the same by any stretch of imagination cannot be construed to be illegal. There is no merit in the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner. Petition is dismissed.

5. Any observation made above, however, will not affect the merit of the case of the petitioner.