Amar Singh vs Inspector General Of Police
2010 Latest Caselaw 5911 Del

1
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                      +    W.P.(C)No.3689/1994

                               Date of Decision : 24th December, 2010
%

      AMAR SINGH                                  ..... Petitioner
                           Through : Mr. T.D. Yadav, Adv.

                      versus

      INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE          ..... Respondent
                   Through : Mr. Satya Saharawat, Adv.
                             for Ms. Jyoti Singh, Adv.

CORAM :-
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

1.      Whether Reporters of Local papers may                  NO
        be allowed to see the Judgment?

2.      To be referred to the Reporter or not?                 NO

3.      Whether the judgment should be                         NO
        reported in the Digest?


GITA MITTAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner challenges the order dated 11th of April,

1994 passed by the respondent against him finding him guilty

of the charges with which he was charged and punished with

dismissal from service. Disciplinary proceedings were ordered

against the petitioner by the Commandant of the 102 Battalion

of the Rapid Action Force („RAF‟ hereafter) by a memo dated

16th May, 1993 on the under mentioned charge:-

"ARTICLE-I "That the said No.821150587 Claims Tribunal/Dver Amar Singh while functioning as a Claims Tribunal/Dvr during the period of his posting at Dett-HQ 102 Bn RAF Theriwal (Punjab) committed an act of misconduct in

his capacity as a member of the Force under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act 1949 in that he refused to perform sentry duty on 1/4/93 without any reason and misbehaved with Guard Commander and also tried to assault him which is prejudicial to the good order and discipline of the Force."

2. Shri G.S. Mehta, Deputy Commandant of the said

Battalion was appointed as Inquiry Officer who conducted the

inquiry against the petitioner. To substantiate the aforesaid

charge, five prosecution witnesses were examined.

3. The respondents have contended that the petitioner was

given full opportunity to defend himself during the course of

inquiry but he refused to defend the charges or to participate in

the inquiry. The petitioner is stated to have refused to respond

in any manner to inquiry officer. He also refused to produce

any witness or document on his defence. In this background,

the disciplinary inquiry was proceeded with ex-parte.

The Inquiry Officer submitted an inquiry report dated 16th

December, 1993. As no Commandant was in office in the 102

Battalion of the RAF, CRPF, the disciplinary proceedings were

forwarded to the office of RAF at New Delhi.

4. After consideration of the record, the disciplinary

authority passed an order dated 11th April, 1994 agreeing with

the report of the findings and the report of the inquiry officer

and found that the aforenoticed charge has been proved

beyond any iota of doubt against the petitioner. The

disciplinary authority has also concluded that the petitioner

was not a fit person to be retained in service in a disciplined

force like the CRPF. Accordingly, in exercise of powers

conferred on the disciplinary authority under Rule 27 of the

Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 („CRPF Rules‟

hereafter), the disciplinary authority imposed the punishment

of dismissal from service from the date of issuance of the order

upon the petitioner. It was further directed that he be struck

off from the strength of the 102 Battalion with effect from the

same date.

5. The challenge by the petitioner is premised on the

submission that the proceedings were initiated malafide at the

instance of one Shri V.C. Kala, who was then posted as the

Deputy Commandant, 102 Battalion of the RAF. Shri V.C. Kala

has been arrayed as respondent No.3 before this Court.

6. So far as the allegations against the respondent No.3 are

concerned, the petitioner submits that while proceeding on

leave on 20th February, 1993, the respondent No.3 had used

the official vehicle No.DL-4C-B-0872 driven by the petitioner

from Theriwal to Amritsar Railway Station and back. In this

regard, reliance is placed on an indent and order form. A

photocopy of the document purporting to be said indent and

order form dated 20th February, 1993 has been placed on

record. The petitioner submits that as per the rule

requirement, such indent had to be completed and signed by

the respondent No.3 who, so far as the journey was concerned,

was the Initiating Officer. The petitioner submits that

respondent No.3 had refused to sign the indent for the reason

that he was on leave and could not sign the same. The

petitioner submits that he was compelled to adjust the 75 odd

kms journey against some other officer‟s indent. As, the

petitioner had shown his reluctance to do so, he had earned

the wrath of the respondent No.3 who had threatened to settle

his scores with him upon return from leave.

7. The petitioner claims to have made a request for transfer

dated 23rd February, 1993 submitted by him under an

apprehension of damage to his service at the hands of

respondent No.3.

8. In order to substantiate his contention that respondent

No.3 was nursing grouse against him, the petitioner has

submitted that the petitioner‟s request for leave on 28th March,

1993 for the reason that his wife was seriously ill and

hospitalized was rejected by the respondent No.3.

9. So far as the incident on 1st/2nd April, 1993 with which he

has been charged, the petitioner submits that late in the night

of 1st April, 1993, he had noticed some person trying to make

an entry into the battalion compound by scaling the boundary

fencing. The petitioner was unable to recognize the intruder on

account of insufficiency of light. As a measure of caution and

being duty bound, the petitioner had warned the intruder and

commanded him to stop. When the intruder failed to respond

to such command, the petitioner had repeated the same. At

about this time, someone had exclaimed that he had been hit.

On approaching with other juniors of the battalion, the intruder

was identified as Sub-Inspector Sukhbir Singh in civilian dress.

10. In the writ petition, the petitioner has disputed any

involvement in the incident with which he was charged and has

urged malice against respondent No.3 for the charge which has

been laid against him and initiation of the departmental action

as well as disciplinary inquiry which was conducted against

him.

11. So far as the disciplinary proceedings against the

petitioner are concerned, it is contended that the petitioner

was never served with the copy of the chargesheet or the

notices of the inquiry. The petitioner contends that he has

been denied the fair opportunity to contest the allegations

against him or to defend the charges. It is urged that the

petitioner never refused to participate and has been denied the

opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses and for this reason

the findings of the Inquiry Officer and the disciplinary authority

are not sustainable and deserve to be quashed.

12. In view of the nature of challenge made by the petitioner,

we had called for the original record of the disciplinary

proceedings conducted by the respondents. The same have

been carefully scrutinized by us.

13. Before proceeding to deal with the challenge to the

inquiry proceedings on the ground of procedural violation as

well as non-compliance of the principles of natural justice, we

may firstly examine the contention of the petitioner with regard

to the malafide of respondent No.3 in initiating the disciplinary

proceedings. The petitioner has placed before us copy of a

document which according to him is the indent related to 20th

February, 1993 with regard to the utilization of a vehicle for

transporting respondent No.3 to Amritsar and back. Perusal of

this document shows that in the dates, there are interpolations

and changes. The date appears at three places on this

document. So far as figure reflecting the month in the dates is

concerned, we find that there is overwriting and the figure „3‟

(indicating the month) has been changed to „2‟ at all three

places. It would appear, therefore, that the document

originally related to an alleged trip made by the vehicle on 20th

March, 1993. In the date, the figure „3‟ stands changed to „2‟

so that the date reads as 20.02.93 i.e. the 20th February, 1993.

We also find that the petitioner also admits that all columns in

the indent, other than the signature at one place at the bottom

of this indent are filled up in his own hand writing.

14. There is yet another circumstance which would show that

the document relied upon by the petitioner does not relate to

20th February, 1993. The respondents have stated that no duty

of the vehicle in question is reflected in its car diary. It is not

disputed that this car diary would have established utilization

of the vehicle on 20th February, 1993.

15. The respondents have also urged that the petitioner does

not explain as to who filled up and adjusted the duty and the

purpose for which the same was adjusted.

16. We also find that the petitioner had made the aforenoted

request dated 23rd February, 1993 for transfer which is

extracted in the writ petition, the petitioner makes no

allegation of any malafide against the respondent No.3. The

petitioner does not even remotely suggest any incident dated

20th February, 1993 or state that he was required to drive the

vehicle unauthorizedly by the respondent No.3 for the

considerable distance of 80 kms. The petitioner has simply

requested for transfer from 102 Battalion to 104 or 105

Battalion.

17. The respondents have explained that the petitioner is a

resident of the District Aligarh and that the headquarter of 104

Battalion was at Aligarh while the headquarter of 105 Battalion

was at Ghaziabad which was also near to Aligarh. It has been

submitted that the request dated 23rd February, 1993 was

simply a request to be placed nearest to his home town and

was not instigated on account of apprehension of any adverse

treatment at the hands of any officer.

18. In these circumstances, the photocopy of the indent relied

upon by the petitioner cannot be relied upon. We are unable to

hold as contended by the petitioner that the respondent No.3

had utilized the vehicle of the petitioner in the manner

suggested or that respondent No.3 was nursing a grouse or

malafide against the petitioner for such reason.

19. So far as the challenge to the proceedings before the

inquiry officer on grounds of procedural violations is concerned,

perusal of the record shows that at every stage, the inquiry

officer had made efforts to serve the communications upon the

petitioner.

20. It appears that the proceedings were initiated against the

petitioner for the reason that in 1993, the petitioner who was

on the strength of 102 Battalion of the force was posted with

its detachment in Punjab. It is not disputed that the

Headquarter of the 102 Battalion was at Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

On 1st April, 1993, the petitioner had refused to perform central

duty at the Empty Park Depot at the Headquarters, Theriwal,

Punjab for which he was detailed. He is stated to have

subsequently drawn a rifle from the ammunition store (Kote),

created nuisance and threatened his Guard Commandar and

other personnel. Shri V.C. Kala, respondent No.3 was the then

Deputy Commandant of the Battalion who rushed to the spot

and pacified the petitioner. The petitioner was persuaded to

surrender his arms and ammunitions.

21. As a result of this incident, the order dated 2nd April, 1993

was passed by the Commandant of the Battalion where the

petitioner was serving placing him under suspension pending

the departmental inquiry which was proposed against him. The

petitioner makes no grievance or allegation of malafide against

the Commandant of the Battalion or the other persons who

have given evidence against him in the departmental

proceedings.

22. The petitioner has placed before this court the order

dated 2nd April, 1993 whereby he was placed under suspension.

It has been pointed out that during the duration of suspension,

Headquarter of the petitioner was declared as the Headquarter

of the 102 Battalion, RAF, CRPF at Bhubaneswar (Orissa). In

terms of the order of suspension, the petitioner was required to

move to the Headquarter of the Battalion located at

Bhubaneswar (Orissa).

23. Perusal of the original record of the disciplinary

proceedings shows that the inquiry officer has made efforts to

keep the petitioner informed at every stage. The Inquiry

Officer has sent notices intimating the proposed date of

proceedings; a notice giving an opportunity to the petitioner to

submit his defence; intimations of the dates and proceedings in

the matter with regard to recording of evidence, forwarding the

copies of the record as well as copies of the statements;

granting opportunities to make submissions and respond to the

material brought on record by the prosecution; opportunity to

produce evidence and make his submissions, etc. The inquiry

record contains inter alia notices dated 25th May, 1993,

5th January, 1993, 10th September, 1993 and 27th September,

1993 in this regard. The petitioner has refused acceptance of

all notices. The refusal is evidenced by endorsement of the

person who has attempted to effect service of the notice

supported by attestation by three or four personnel of the force

who have signed and confirmed that the notices were tendered

and that the petitioner refused to accept the same.

24. The petitioner has therefore stubbornly and consistently

refused to join the inquiry. Other than the bald plea of denial

of opportunity to contest the same, the petitioner has placed

no material at all which could substantiate his pleas. He has

admittedly moved from Amritsar to Bhubaneswar in terms and

stood placed under suspension. For this entire period, the

petitioner would have been drawing a subsistence allowance.

In this background, the petitioner certainly cannot contend that

he was not aware of the proceedings which were being

conducted against him.

25. The record of the disciplinary proceedings shows that

they have been conducted in accordance with the prescribed

procedure and the principles of natural justice have been

adhered to and fully complied with. The petitioner has also

been given full opportunity to participate and contest the

charges.

26. We also do not find even a single representation or

complaint to higher authorities who could have intervened had

the petitioner‟s suspension been unwarranted or if he was

treated unjustly or unfairly. Given the refusal of the petitioner

to cooperate in the matter or to appear in the inquiry and his

refusal to even accept and acknowledge the notices issued

repeatedly to him, in our view, the Inquiry Officer had no option

but to proceed in the manner in which he had done so.

27. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution who

have supported the allegations and the charge. The petitioner

refused to cross-examine them. The petitioner does not even

remotely suggest that these five witnesses who were his

colleagues nurtured any malafide against him. The incident

dated 1st of April, 1993 was fully proved in these statements.

The petitioner has refused to respond to the charge or to lead

any evidence in defence of the charge. In this background, the

recommendations of the Inquiry Officer and the finding of guilt

by the Disciplinary Authority in the order dated 11th April, 1994

cannot be faulted on any legal tenable ground.

28. We also find that the respondents have compassionately

considered the request of the petitioner for leave despite the

pendency of the disciplinary proceedings against him when he

was granted 30 days leave on the unfortunate demise of his

wife. The petitioner‟s request for earned leave prior thereto

could not be favourably considered for the reason that he was

under suspension and was facing disciplinary proceedings. It is

regrettable that because of the non-cooperation of the

petitioner, despite the order of suspension having been made

as back as on 2nd April, 1993, the disciplinary proceedings were

protracted to the extent and manner in which they were done

so by the petitioner.

For all the foregoing reasons, we find no merit in the writ

petition which is hereby dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J DECEMBER 24, 2010 mk