Virender Singh vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors.
2007 Latest Caselaw 448 Del

JUDGMENT

T.S. Thakur, J.

1. In this petition for a writ of mandamus, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents to reinvestigate an incident that took place on 27.02.1998 in which the petitioner was allegedly beaten up by a superior army officer and also for payment of compensation in a sum of Rs. 10 lacs on account of the said incident. A mandamus directing the respondents to sanction regular pension for the petitioner and to commute the same as per the rules and regulations was also prayed for initially but has been given up before us at the time of hearing by learned Counsel for the petitioner who submits that the petitioner has been granted pension as per rules and regulations and that part of the same has been commuted also. In that view therefore the only issue that survives for consideration by this Court is whether there is any room for directing a fresh investigation into the incident referred to above and whether there is any case made out by the petitioner for grant of compensation to the tune of Rs. 10 lacs less or more. The factual matrix in which the controversy arises may be set out as under:

The petitioner was working as a rifleman in 8 ASSAM FIRLES, Manipur Unit during the relevant period. He was, according to the respondents, a low medical category personnel on account of a ruptured spleen, which was later on surgically removed. On 27.02.1998, he appears to have been referred to the Regiment Medical Officer for medical examination to process his case for invalidation on the ground of his being a low medical category case. The petitioner's version is that when he approached Major A. Shukla, RMO respondent No. 4 herein for medical examination, he was mercilessly beaten by the said Officer resulting in injuries to his nose. This incident according to the petitioner has not been investigated properly although the petitioner had made a representation to the higher authorities. The petitioner had later on opted for compulsory retirement which was granted to him with full pensionary benefits. The petitioner's grievance now is that the incident involving his physical maltreatment by Major A. Shukla should have been properly investigated and appropriate orders punishing the delinquent officer passed by the competent authority. The petitioner has also prayed for compensation for having being beaten and humiliated by a superior officer.

2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents in which it is inter-alia pointed out that a Court of inquiry was conducted into the incident in the course thereof the statements of Major A. Shukla was recorded as witness No. 1 who was cross examined by the petitioner. In addition to statements of six other witnesses, the statement of the petitioner was also recorded in the course of Court of inquiry. The Court of inquiry had upon appreciation of the said evidence recorded its findings and made its recommendations. Those findings and recommendations were accepted in so far as the same proposed a warning to Major A. Shukla were concerned but since the petitioner had opted for compulsory retirement, no further disciplinary action was taken against him on the basis of recommendations made by the Court of inquiry. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondents that the incident having being properly investigated at the appropriate level, there is no room for any further investigation into the same nor is there any room for awarding any compensation to the petitioner, who had himself provoked the incident. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is evident from the record relied upon by the petitioner that a Court of inquiry was conducted to investigate the incident reported by the petitioner. The Court of inquiry had on the basis of the evidence recorded the following among other findings:

18 Rfn/GD Virender Singh then went back to RMO and told him as to why he was snatching his bread and butter and why he was hitting at his belly (petitioner Par lat kyon mar rahe ho).

19 RMO tried to explain him that as explained earlier he was being sent on release on med ground. There was no need of arguments as he was in a permanent low med cat.

20 Rfn/GD Virender Singh didn't listen anything but repeatedly told RMO that he was snatching his bread and butter and he was hitting at his belly.

21 When Rfn/GD Virender Singh became arrogant and also started shouting in rude manner, Major A Shukla RMO 8 Assam Rifles got annoyed and slapped Rfn/ GD Birendra Singh on his face.

22 When Maj A Shukla was slapping Rfn/GD Virendra Singh, he tried to avoid being hit and in the process his face hit wooden beam/support of the room. This resulted in abrasion and slight bleeding from the bridge of his nose.

23 Immediately after slapping Rfn/GD Virendra Singh, RMO Major A Shukla, realised his mistake and apologised from Rfn/GD Virendra Singh and told him as to why he had provoked him to do such an act.

24 The conduct of Major A Shukla, RMO towards his patients is normally good and he listens to their problems sympathetically. The Court of inquiry had eventually made the following recommendations:

(a) MR-06088L Major A Shukla of 8 Assam Rifles be given warning for slapping No. 83520 Rfn/GD Virendra Singh on 27 Beb 1998 and he told to be more careful and polite in his dealings with tps in future.

(b) Suitable disciplinary action be taken against No. 83520 Rfn/GD Virendra Singh for not signing the documents and using insulting language with MR-06088 L major Arvind Shukla.

It is not in dispute before us that a warning was given to Major A. Shukla, the delinquent officer involved in the incident. In that view therefore the question of directing any further inquiry into the matter which has been investigated and appropriate findings regarding the genesis of the same recorded does not arise.

3. As regards payment of compensation, it is noteworthy that it was only in February, 1999 that the petitioner had for the first time addressed a letter to the Home Ministry claiming compensation of Rs. 2 lacs for the incident in question. That letter was followed by a further representation made in November, 1999 in which the amount of compensation was raised to Rs. 3 lacs. A legal notice sent to the Secretary, Ministry of Home, Government of India, Central Secretariat, New Delhi and Director General, Assam Rifles in February, 2000 eventually raised the claim of compensation to Rs. 10 lacs. A reply to that notice was sent on behalf of the respondents in May, 2000 pointing out that a Court of inquiry was held to investigate the matter and charges of merciless beating of the petitioner found to be baseless. It was also stated that Major A. Shukla who was involved in the incident had been warned to be careful. The claim for payment of compensation was in that view turned down by the respondents. Suffice it to say that the issue whether and if so to what extent was the incident provoked by the petitioner and the extent of misdemeanor of Major A. Shukla calling for any punitive action against him had been investigated by the army authorities who found that the incident had been provoked by the petitioner himself on account of his rude and arrogant behavior towards a senior officer. In the light of the said finding, we see no reason to strike a discordant note. If the incident had indeed taken place on account of the rude and arrogant behavior of the petitioner qua a superior officer, the view taken by the authorities regarding the punishment to be imposed upon the officer can not be said to be perverse to warrant interfere by this Court. So also the denial of compensation for the slaps that he received from his superior would not call for payment of any compensation to him. That is so particularly when the petitioner has suffered no permanent disability or deformity on account of the slaps given to him. The only evidence of any injury was some blood on his nose which according to the version of the Major Shukla, got hurt, because the petitioner hit against the table in the course of the scuffle. That being the position, there is no room for award of any compensation also.

4. There is no merit in this writ petition which fails and is hereby dismissed but in the circumstances without any order as to costs.