Delhi High Court
B. C. Sharma vs Union Of India & Ors. on 8 March, 2010
Author: Mool Chand Garg
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P. (C.) No. 1357/2010
% Date of Decision: 08.03.2010
B. C. SHARMA .... PETITIONER
Through Dr.K.S.Chauhan, Mr.Chand Kiran and
Mr.Kartar Singh, Advocates
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ....RESPONDENTS
Through Mr.A.K.Bhardwaj and Mr. Banmali
Shukla, Advocates for Respondent No.1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be Yes
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in No
the Digest?
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
*
1. This writ petition has been filed on behalf of the petitioner
assailing the order dated 11.9.2009 passed by the Central
Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter
referred to as "the Tribunal"), whereby the learned Tribunal has
dismissed the OA bearing No. 479/2009 filed under Section 19 of the
Central Administrative Tribunal's Act by holding that the allegations
leveled against the petitioner in the departmental enquiry stood proved
from the evidence which was led on record and that there was no
occasion to interfere with the findings returned by the enquiry officer,
disciplinary authority or the appellate authority.
2. Briefly stating, the facts giving rise to the present case are :
(i) The petitioner who was working as an Inspector
with the Central Bureau of Investigation, Jabalpur was
proceeded against departmentally on account of the
allegations leveled against him regarding demand of
money from an accused against whom he was holding
an enquiry with a view to clear his name from the
enquiry.
(ii) The petitioner was served with the memorandum
along with article of charge in this regard under Rule 8
of the Delhi Special Police Establishment (Subordinate
Ranks) (Disciplinary and Appeal) Rules, 1961 alleging
that the petitioner while being posted and functioning
as Inspector of Police, CBI, Jabalpur Branch during
the period 1999 committed misconduct and failed to
maintain his absolute integrity, devotion to duty and
acted in a manner unbecoming of public servant
inasmuch as he demanded Rs. 1 lakh from Dr.M.
Subedar to clear his name from a case bearing No.
RC.10(A)/99/ACB/Jabalpur which was being
investigated by him and attempted to obtain reduced
amount of Rs. 30,000/- from Dr.M. Subedar.
(iii) As per the statement of imutation of misconduct
in support of article of charge it is alleged:-
(a) that Shri B.C. Sharma was working as
Inspector, CBI in Jabalpur Branch during the
year 1999-2000. During the relevant period,
one case RC10(A)/99-CBI/JBL was entrusted to
him for investigation. Shri B.C. Sharma while
investigating that said case failed to maintain
absolute integrity, devotion to duty and acted in
a manner unbecoming of a public servant
inasmuch as he demanded Rs. 1 lakh as bribe
from Dr. M.Subedar, CMO, NTPC, Farakka for
clearing his name from the said case.
Subsequently, Shri B.C. Sharma, Inspector
reduced the said demand to Rs. 30,000/- and
agreed to accept the same from Dr. M.Subedar.
(b) that Shri B.C. Sharma on 24.01.2000
visited Hotel Rishi Regency at Jabalpur along
with Dr. M. Subedar on his scooter and there he
demanded Rs. 1 lakh from Dr. M.Subedar. Shri
B.C. Sharma contacted Shri M. Subedar from
Calcutta on 07.02.2000 and 09.02.2000 for
obtaining the bribe amount and also asked Dr.
M. Subedar to meet him at Bilaspur between
15.02.2000 to 17.02.2000. Shri B.C.Sharma,
Inspector in pursuance of same submitted his
tour programme for Bilaspur from 16.06.2000 to
19.02.2000 but the same was not approved by
the concerned SP of the Branch and Shri
B.C.Sharma had been asked to visit katni for
some other official work.
(c) that Dr.M.Subedar contacted Shri
H.S.Binepal, Dy.Genl. Manager, NTPC at New
Delhi over telephone from Farraka. Shri H.S.
Binepal advised Dr. M.Subedar to come to Delhi
and told him not to pay the bribe money to Shri
B.C. Sharma, Inspector. Accordingly,
Dr.M.Subedar came to Delhi and contacted Shri
H.S. Binepal, Dy. GM and Shri G.S. Sodhi, Sr.
Manager (Vig.), NTPC. On 13,14,15.02.2000,
Dr. Subedar contacted Shri B.C. Sharma over
telephone at Jabalpur. The telephone number of
Shri B.C. Sharma's residence was dialed by Shri
H.S. Binepal and after connecting, the phone
was handed over to Dr.M.Subedar. While they
were making the call at the residence of the
accused from the room of Shri H.S. Binepal, Shri
G.S. Sodhi was also hearing the conversation on
the parallel telephone line from the CVO's
Secretariat room and also recorded the
conversation. The said recorded conversation
has been transcribed which prove demand of
bribe by Inspector Sharma. The voice of Shri
B.C. Sharma in the recorded conversation has
been identified by S/Shri N.C. Dutta and S.D.
Deosthale, both Inspectors, CBI, Jabalpur
Branch who worked with Shri B.C. Sharma
while posted at Jabalpur besides confirmation of
voice of Shri B.C. Sharma by the expert of CFSL,
CBI, New Delhi.
(iv) Thus, Shri B.C. Sharma during investigation of
case RC10(A)/99 of CBI, Jabalpur, demanded bribe
from Dr. M. Subedar for clearing the name of Dr.
M.Subedar and thereby contravened Rule 3(1)(i)(ii)(iii)
of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
3. The enquiry was proceeded in accordance with the Central Civil
Service (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Altogether 19 witnesses were cited on
behalf of the Disciplinary Authority; however, the Presenting Officer
produced only 11 witnesses on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority and
dropped the remaining witnesses. All the documents/articles cited
were produced by the witnesses and these were taken on record as
exhibits. The petitioner examined three witnesses in his defence.
Thereafter, the petitioner was generally examined. In the said
examination, the petitioner did not dispute the fact that he was
investigating RC10(A)/99-CBI/JBR against Shri Jaideep Das, Manager
(Finance), NTPC, Korba and also admitted that he called Dr. M.
Subedar, complainant, and had a meeting with him in the CBI Office on
24.1.2000. However, he has denied the demand of Rs. 1 lakh from Dr.
Subedar to bail him out in this case. He has admitted that it is correct
that he had submitted tour programme for Bilaspur for the period
16.02.2000 to 19.02.2000 on 16.02.2000 but the same was scored out
and another tour programme was submitted by him on 16.02.2000
itself for Katni in connection with some other official work which was
approved by the SP. He has also admitted that Dr.Subedar had
contacted him over telephone at Jabalpur residence on 13.02.2000,
14.02.2000, 15.02.2000, and that he (CO) contacted Dr. M. Subedar on
telephone on 15.02.2000. He has also admitted recording of his
specimen voice. Dr. M.Subedar was examined as PW-9 and he
supported the complaint made against the petitioner.
4. Based upon the report given by the enquiry officer who found the
article of charge having been proved against the petitioner, the
Disciplinary Authority passed the order dismissing the petitioner from
the service of the respondents. An appeal against the order of dismissal
was filed by the petitioner before the Director, CBI, New Delhi in
accordance with Rule 15 (2) of the Rules which as per the schedule
annexed with those rules was heard by the Director, who was of the
rank of Deputy Inspector General of Police and as such was competent
to hear the appeal. The Appellate Authority also dismissed the appeal
vide order dated 07.02.2007.
5. It is thereafter the petitioner approached the Tribunal as stated
above. The Tribunal vide impugned order has dismissed the OA and
while doing so, the Tribunal has observed :-
6. It is settled position that when the appellate authority
finally agrees with the views taken by the disciplinary
authority, it may not be necessary to advert to all the
contentions de novo. The applicant has been informed of
the decision and the Rules of business permit such practice
to be followed. We had also noticed the rules and it is clear
that they provide for only one appeal from the orders of the
disciplinary authority. Applicant had exhausted his remedy
and his contention is that under Rule 15 of CCS (CCA)
Rules, a fresh appeal lies to the Government as well may
not be legally tenable. The contentions are, therefore,
overruled.
7. In matters of disciplinary enquiry, the jurisdiction
exercised by the Tribunal mostly concern about the
decision making process rather than the actual decision
that is forthcoming. In other words, the court is not to
unduly look into the justifiability or acceptability of the
evidence as such in a case where due opportunity had been
given to the officer concerned to defend himself and the
procedure prescribed by the Rules had been substantially
followed. When there is material to show that indeed
prejudice be fallen on the applicant, then alone it may be
possible for the Tribunal to interfere. A different conclusion
possible on the evidence also does not necessarily require
that the finding is to be upset. Only if perversity is
apparent, further probe is warranted. Likewise in the
matter of imposition of penalty, unless there is
disportionality, Courts are not expected to interfere. By
adopting the above yardsticks, we are of the view that the
applicant has not shown any valid reason for interfering
with the decision and consequential orders passed.
8. The allegation as against the applicant was one of
demanding bribe. The statement of imputations indicated
the circumstances. The finding of the enquiry officer
followed by the decision of the disciplinary authority
showed that sufficient materials have been brought in to
establish that there was a demand of bribe and the victim
had brought the situation to the notice of the higher officers
of the Department. The attempt of the applicant is to show
that that there was only solitary and, therefore, only feeble
evidence to implicate the applicant. It may not be true the
circumstances existing as against the applicant are very
much substantiated since his conversations have been tape
recorded and a method for forensic voice identification
disclosed that the applicant was involved in demanding
bribe. The attendant circumstances also pointed the finger
at the applicant.
9. Mr.Gangwani submits that there was also criminal case
charged against the applicant and the Court had convicted
him. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous
imprisonment and payment of find. Although the applicant
submits that an appeal has been filed and it is pending,
prima facie it shows that legal evidence was there as
against him. Of course, for departmental enquiry, the
strictness attached to criminal proceedings are not there.
This is also indicative of the circumstances that the
allegations against the applicant were proved to be found.
10. In the circumstances, we find no merit in the
application. The same is accordingly dismissed. Parties to
bear their own costs.
6. Before us, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner only
submitted that the petitioner was entitled to file an appeal to the
Secretary, Government of India and did file an appeal to the said
authority, a copy of which is available on record. It is also submitted
that there was violation of Rule 15 inasmuch as the Secretary,
Government of India has not even considered the appeal filed by the
petitioner. He also submitted that the petitioner was not even conveyed
with the order passed by the Director, CBI.
7. To appreciate the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel
for the petitioner, it would be appropriate to refer to Rule 15 which
reads as under:
15. Appeal against orders imposing
penalties:
1. A subordinate police officer may appeal
against an order of the Inspector General of
Police imposing upon him any of the penalties
specified in clause (iii) to (x) of rule 6 to the
Secretary to the Government of India Ministry of
Home Affairs.
2. Subject to the provisions contained in
sub-rule (1), a Subordinate Police Officer may
appeal against an order imposing upon him any
of penalties specified in clause (iii) to (x) of rule 6
to the authority specified in this behalf in the
Schedule.
3. No appeal shall lie against an order
imposing any of the penalties specified in clause
(i) and (ii) of rule 6.
Explanation: In this rule the expression
"Subordinate Police Officer includes a person
who has ceased to hold any rank or post
mentioned in the Schedule.
8. The schedule attached to the Rule is as under:
SCHEDULE
DESCRIPTION APPOINTING AUTHORITY EMPOWERED TO IMPOSE PENALTIES AND
OF RANK OR AUTHORITY PENALTY WHICH IT MAY IMPOSE
POST.
AUTHORITY PENALTIES APPELLATE
AUTHORITY
1. 2. 3. 4. 5.
(i)Fatigue duty (in the case of
Constable only);
(ii) Extra Guard Duty (in the
case of Head constable and
Constable only);
(iii) Black Mark;
(iv) Censure;
(v) Withholding of increments
or promotion;
(vi) Recovery from pay of the
whole or part of any pecuniary
loss caused to the Government
by negligence or breach of
orders;
(vii) Reduction to a lower rank
or post or a lower time scale of
to a lower stage in a time
scale,
(viii) Compulsory retirement;
(ix) Removal from service
which shall not be a
disqualification for future
employment;
(x) Dismissal from service
which shall ordinarily be a
disqualification for future
employment.
DELHI SPECIAL POLICE
ESTABLISHMENT (SUBORDINATE
RANKS)
1.Inspector Dy. Inspr. (1)Supdt. of (iv) to (vii) (i)Dy. Inspector
including Technical General of Police/Assistant Genl. Of Police.
Inspector, Assistant Police Inspr. General of (2)Inspector
Public Prosecutors Police. Genl. Of Police.
Grade-I (2)Dy. Inspector All
Genl. Of Police.
2.Sub-Insprs. Dy.Inspr. (1) Supdt. of (iv) to (1) Dy.
Including Technical Gernal of Police/Asstt. (vii) Inspector
Sub-Inspector, Police Inspector General of
Asstt. Public General of Police.
Prosecutors Grade II Police. (2) Inspector
and Asstt. Sub- (2) Dy. General of
Inspector Inspector Police.
General of All
Police
3.Head Constables Supdt. of (1) Dy. Supdt. (ii) (1) No
Police Asstt. of Police appeal
Inspector (2) Supdt. of allowed.
General of Police/AIG All (2) Dy.
Police. Inspector
General of
Police
4. Constable SP/AIG (1) Dy. Supdt. (i) To (ii) (1) No
of Police. appeal
(2) Supdt. of All allowed.
Police/AIG (2) Dy.
Inspector
General of
Police
9. As per the aforesaid scheme, in respect of any of the punishment
awarded to the official by the disciplinary authority below the rank of
Deputy Inspector General, the appeal can be filed before the DIG/IG. It
is only in the case of an order passed by the IG, appeal can be filed
before the Secretary. In this regard, we find that no second appeal
could have been filed by the petitioner inasmuch as he availed the
remedy of appeal by filing an appeal before the Director, CBI, who was
equivalent to Deputy Inspector General of Police and which appeal, as
stated above, was dismissed as intimated to the petitioner. It is against
the said order the appellant approached the Tribunal.
10. A perusal of the petition filed before the Tribunal shows that the
petitioner mentioned the fact of dismissing/rejecting his appeal in
paragraph 4.7 of the application filed before the Tribunal. In the
aforesaid paragraph, the petitioner has also mentioned about the
receipt of letter bearing No. CBI ID No. DPPERS,
II/2008/0200/A.20014/742/84 dated 22.01.2008, by him on
15.02.2008. Thus, it is apparent that the appeal remedy was availed by
the petitioner, but he was not successful. On perusal of the order
passed by the enquiry officer and the disciplinary authority, it is clear
that the charges were proved against the petitioner by the enquiry
officer, it was also upheld by the disciplinary authority and by the
appellate authority. The Tribunal has dealt with all the aspects of the
matter.
11. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the orders
passed by the Tribunal while exercising powers of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is
dismissed, of course, with no order as to costs.
CM No. 2830/2010 (Stay)
In view of the orders passed above, the application has become
infructuous and is accordingly disposed of.
MOOL CHAND GARG, J.
MARCH 08, 2010 ANIL KUMAR, J.
'DC'
