Sat Pal Singh vs Uoi & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 15 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                           W.P.(C) No.3822/1998

                 Date of Decision: 06th January, 2010



       SAT PAL SINGH                               ..... Petitioner
                            Through:   Mr. D.S. Kuntae, Advocate

                       versus


       UOI & ORS.                                    .....Respondents
                            Through:   Mr. Atul Nanda, Mr. Ankur
                                       Chibber and Mr. Sumeer Sodhi,
                                       Advocates

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIPIN SANGHI

       1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may             No
          be allowed to see the judgment?
       2. To be referred to Reporter or not?                    No
       3. Whether the judgment should be reported               No
          in the Digest?

%                               JUDGMENT (Oral)

GITA MITTAL, J.

1. The present petition has been filed assailing the order

dated 05.08.1997 passed by Commandant of 32 Battalion of the

CRPF pursuant to the departmental inquiry conducted against the

petitioner under Rule 27 of the C.R.P.F. Rules 1955. The petitioner

also assails the order dated 03.12.1997 dismissing his appeal under

Rule 28 of the said Rules as well as the order dated 17.04.1998

confirming the aforesaid two orders in revision under Rule 29 of the

said Rules.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition are undisputed

and are within a narrow compass. To the extent necessary, the

same may be briefly noticed hereinafter:

3. The petition arises out of an undisputed occurrence on

05.10.1996 when the petitioner was posted as Lance Naik Driver

with the 32 Battalion of the CRPF then located in Srinagar, J & K.

The truck No.DEG 1360 was detailed as an indenting vehicle for the

purpose of distributing E.I. clothing to the company personnel

proceeding on leave and to collect daks from battalion headquarters.

The petitioner was assigned the duty of driving this truck. While on

duty as the driver of this vehicle, the petitioner consumed liquor and

thereafter was involved in an accident with a stationary civilian bus

near the Dal Lake Chowk in Srinagar. Other than the petitioner, H.C.

R.C. Sharma and four other CRPF personnel were passengers in the

vehicle. As a result of this accident, the civilian bus was damaged.

The petitioner's vehicle was also severely damaged.

4. The incident was reported to the higher officials of the

petitioner resulting in issuing of following articles of charge against

the petitioner:

"ARTICLE - I

That the said No. 871190779 Lnk/Dvr Satpal Singh, while functioning as Lnk/Dvr in 32 Bn CRPF on 05/10/96 committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the Force punishable u/s. 11 (1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he drove Govt. vehicle No. DEG 1360 TATA Truck rash and negligently after consuming liquor on duty, resulting accident

of the Govt. vehicle with a civil Bus Regn. No. JKB 8847, causing damage to CRPF vehicle No. DEG 1360.

ARTICLE - II That during the afore-said date while functioning in the afore-said office, the said No. 871190779 LNK/Dvr Satpal Singh was guilty of disobedience of orders in his capacity as a member of the Force punishable U/s. 11 (1) of CRPF Act 1949 in that he did not obey the orders of No. 690210172 HC R.C. Sharma of E/32 Bn who directed him not to drive vehicle No. DEG 1360 as the said LNK/Dvr had consumed liquor."

5. The respondents had proposed to initiate disciplinary

enquiry and, in compliance with the applicable rules, had duly

served a memorandum as well as a statement of imputation of

misconduct/disobedience of orders in support of the said articles of

charges; lists of documents and witnesses to the petitioner dated

13.2.1997.

6. The petitioner had filed a reply dated 20.02.1997 admitting

the factum of his having consumed alcohol while on duty and of his

having met with the accident. The petitioner sought to explain his

conduct of consuming liquor while on duty by stating that he was

insufficiently clad and it was a cold evening. He had consumed the

liquor by way of medication to keep himself warm to perform his

assigned duty. It was the petitioner's contention that one light of

the vehicle was damaged and consequently he was driving the

vehicle with only one headlight. He stated that it was a mere

accident beyond his control. So far as the second Article of Charge

is concerned, the petitioner denied the allegation against him that

he drove the vehicle in disobedience of the order of Head Constable

R.C. Sharma.

7. During the course of inquiry proceedings, the inquiry

officer examined the petitioner and put the Articles of Charges to

him. In proceedings recorded on 26.03.1997 the petitioner pleaded

guilty to the first Article of Charge and pleaded not guilty to the

second Charge framed against him. The inquiry proceeded to record

evidence of nine witnesses thereafter which included Head

Constable R.C. Sharma as well as the four co-passengers in the

truck. The petitioner's statement was also recorded during the

course of inquiry proceedings. It is noteworthy that even in the

statement recorded by the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner by and

large had not disputed the events leading to the occurrence other

than bringing in picture a car being driven at fast speed, and stating

that he was compelled to swerve the truck in order to avoid colliding

with this vehicle. The petitioner, in his reply contended that one

headlight bulb of the vehicle was not functional. However, it is the

undisputed position that the vehicle, which the petitioner was

driving, had hit the stationary bus from the rear side in which two or

three passengers were sitting on the front side. The petitioner also

admits that he did not stop the vehicle after the occurrence, but

drove away to the gate of the headquarters.

8. It is an accepted fact that the inquiry was conducted as per

the applicable rules and the petitioner was given full opportunity to

cross-examine the witnesses. He, however, did not cross-examine

any of the prosecution witnesses. No allegation of violation of

principles of natural justice was made by the petitioner in relation to

the inquiry, or at any stage thereafter. Even before us, it is not the

petitioner's contention that the inquiry proceedings are rendered

illegal on account of violation of the applicable statutory provisions

or any of the principles of natural justice.

9. After detailed consideration of the evidence placed before

him, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 05.06.1997

wherein he found the petitioner guilty of the first Article of Charge.

However, for the reason that the statement of Head Constable R.C.

Sharma was not supported by the evidence of the other co-

passengers, who stated that they were not in a position to hear the

conversation between the Head Constable and the petitioner as they

were sitting in the rear of the vehicle, the inquiry officer was of the

view that the second Article of Charge had been only partially

proved.

10. This inquiry report was placed before the Commandant of

the 32 Battalion, he being the Disciplinary Authority. By an order

passed on 05.08.1997, the Disciplinary Authority agreed with the

findings of the Inquiry Officer and exercised powers vested in him in

Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949 read with Rule 27 of the Rules

framed thereunder, directing removal of the petitioner from service

w.e.f. 08.08.1997 after all clearance. The Disciplinary Authority

further directed that an amount of Rs.4853/- being 50% of the cost

of the damage caused to the CRPF vehicle be recovered from his

dues. It was further directed that the period of suspension from the

service of the petitioner w.e.f. 05.10.1996 to 07.08.1997 be treated

as such, and that he would not be entitled to any emoluments

except whatever he has drawn in the form of subsistence allowance.

11. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner filed the appeal dated

03.09.1997 under Rule 28 of the CRPF Rules to the Deputy Inspector

General of the CRPF Group Centre, Hyderabad. This appeal came to

be rejected by an order passed on 03.12.1997. The petitioner's

revision under Rule 29 of the said Rules was also rejected by the

Inspector General of Police, Hyderabad by an order passed on

17.04.1998.

12. The respondents have produced the original record, which

has been seen by us.

13. Before us, Mr. D.S. Kauntae had urged at length that the

conduct of the petitioner was at best a minor misdemeanor, which

could not have attracted the harsh punishment of removal from

service, which has been imposed upon him. He has admitted that

60 ml. of liquor is normally issued to serving personnel in the force

and that the petitioner was neither rash nor negligent, but it was on

account of the turn of events including insufficiency of light, and the

intention of avoiding the speeding car coming from the opposite

direction, that the petitioner hit the stationary bus. He assails the

action taken by the respondents on ground of disproportionality of

the sentence which has been awarded to him.

14. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, we find that

so far as the first Article of Charge against the petitioner is

concerned, the petitioner accepted his guilt in respect thereof. As a

result, it would appear that the petitioner had admittedly driven a

service vehicle on duty while under the influence of liquor. Apart

from the admission of the petitioner, it has come in the unrebutted

testimony of five other witnesses that the petitioner drove the

vehicle rashly and negligently resulting in the accident on

05.10.1996. The CRPF vehicle is stated to have suffered damage to

the tune of Rs.9706/-.

15. The conduct of the petitioner requires to be tested as

against the effect of his actions. The petitioner drove into the rear

of a stationary civilian vehicle in a crowded civilian area. It has

come on record that as a result of the accident, the bus suffered

damage to the tune of Rs.12,000/- and two passengers also got

minor injuries, who were given first aid in a nearby hospital.

However, matter does not end here. Instead of bringing his vehicle

to a stop and ascertaining the damage caused to the two vehicles,

and also finding out as to whether any injuries have resulted to any

person, the petitioner opted to flee away from the spot with his

vehicle. The witnesses have deposed that the members of the

traffic police, who were posted in that area, tried to stop the

petitioner from driving away, but were unsuccessful. The

petitioner's vehicle was given a chase by the traffic police and he

could be persuaded to stop the vehicle only when he had reached

the CRPF headquarters.

16. We find that the respondents have carefully examined the

conduct of the petitioner as well as its effect. The petitioner is a

member of a paramilitary force and discipline is required to be

maintained. The petitioner was entrusted with the safety of men

and material.

17. It has come in the evidence of his superiors viz. Head

Constable R.C. Sharma as well as his colleagues that he was driving

the vehicle rashly and negligently. Head Constable R.C. Sharma also

cannot be disbelieved when he states that he had instructed the

petitioner not to drive the vehicle under the influence of alcohol. As

aforesaid, his statement had not even been challenged by the

petitioner as he was not cross examined.

18. The respondent have also explained that rash and

negligent driving after consumption of liquor is by itself a serious

offence and merits stringent punishment. Even if we were to agree

with learned counsel for the petitioner that the offence of which the

petitioner has been found charged was that of minor misdemeanor,

the conduct of the petitioner after the occurrence certainly merits no

leniency. The petitioner cared not for the safety of the persons

whom he was carrying, but opted to flee from the spot after being

involved in an accident, which resulted in severe damage to a

stationary vehicle without at all caring for the life or safety of the

passengers whom he may have injured.

19. In view of the above, the reliance placed by learned

counsel for the petitioner on the pronouncement of the Apex Court

reported in State of Punjab & Ors. v. Ram Singh Ex-Constable

1992 SCC (L&S) 793 appears to be misplaced. We find that the case

before the Apex Court concerned a police personnel who had

consumed alcohol and was found wandering near a bus stop with his

service revolver. He was brought to the civil hospital for medical

examination where he had abused the doctor on duty. The Apex

Court had held that the act constitutes the gravest act of misconduct

in the disciplined service like the police service, which justifies his

dismissal. In this judgment the Apex Court has considered the

meaning of the word "misconduct". The Supreme Court excluded

mere error of judgment, carelessness or negligence in performance

of the duty from the realm of misconduct. However, we find nothing

in this pronouncement which could come to the aid of the petitioner

in the given facts and circumstances notice hereinabove. The

conduct of the petitioner could certainly not be described as mere

negligence in performance of his duty or error of judgment or

carelessness. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relies on U.P.

State Road Transport Corporation & Ors. v. Mahesh Kumar

Mishra & Ors. (2000) 3 SCC 450. In this case, the charge was that

the respondent had issued short distance tickets to 11 passengers,

resulting in deficiency in fare amounting to 30 paise per head. A

perusal of this judgment would show that for the reason that no

evidence was placed before the inquiry officer by the department, it

was concluded that the punishment of removal from service was

highly disproportionate. It is not so before us. The respondent not

only established the charges against the petitioner by examination

of nine witnesses, but as noticed above, the petitioner has also

admitted the allegations in Article I of the Charge against him.

20. In view of the above, we find the challenge by the

petitioner wholly misconceived and legally untenable. This writ

petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J.

VIPIN SANGHI, J.

JANUARY 06, 2010 rsk