Mukesh Singh vs Inspector General Cisf & Ors.
2010 Latest Caselaw 4399 Del

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI


                 Writ Petition (Civil) No. 3317/2002


                         Date of decision: 20th September, 2010

    MUKESH SINGH                     ..... Petitioner
                  Through Mr. Vishwendra Verma, Adv.


                        versus


    INSPECTOR GENERAL CISF & ORS              .... Respondent

Through Ms. Raman Oberoi, Adv.

CORAM:

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

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes

GITA MITTAL, J(Oral)

1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner assailing

the order dated 29th March, 2000 of the disciplinary authority;

26th December, 2000 by the appellate authority and the order

dated 29th June, 2001 passed by the revisional authority

dismissing the petitioner's revision assailing the previous

orders.

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 1 of 11

2. With regard to an alleged incident which occurred on 13th

December, 1999 in the lines to which the petitioner was

assigned, disciplinary proceedings were conducted against the

petitioner pursuant to a charge sheet dated 4th January, 2000

on the following charges :-

" CHARGE-I The Force No. 864480374 Const. Mukesh Singh on 13.12.99 at about 19.30 hours indulged in abusing under intoxication of liquor in the line. To indulge in such act as a member of the Force shown gross indiscipline, misconduct and disobedience of orders of higher officers. Hence this charge.

CHARGE-II On 13.12.99 Force No. 864480374 Const.

Mukesh Singh under intoxication of Liquor attacked on HC/GD B.R. Singh and Constable S.S. Sharma, because of which they received injuries. An attack on other force members under intoxication of liquor by a member of an armed force shows gross indiscipline and misconduct and tarnishes the image of the Force. Hence the charge.

CHARGE-III Force No. 864480374 Const. Mukesh Singh inspite of being member of an armed Force has been punished with 10 punishments (Major and small) for different acts of indiscipline, disobedience of orders, misconduct and misbehavior, which shows that he is habitual of committing acts of indiscipline, disobedience of orders, misconduct and misbehavior."

3. The petitioner submitted a reply dated 19th January,

2000 inter alia admitting the fact that he had consumed alcohol,

though disputing its effect. Also an incident of abuse was

admitted explaining that he was generally abusing his relatives

and not members of the forece. The petitioner also attempted

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 2 of 11 to portray a different picture of the incident of dispute and

scuffle on the same date. The copy of the reply which has been

placed before us would show that the petitioner admits that

there was a scuffle in which other personnel including Constable

S.S. Sharma and Head Constable D.R. Singh were involved and

had also got injured. A grievance was made therein by the

petitioner that on account of unwarranted force being used in

this incident against him, he suffered injuries which were

recorded by the doctor who had medically examined him on the

same date.

4. The respondents found the reply of the petitioner dated

19th January, 2000 unsatisfactory and proceeded to conduct a

detailed inquiry. During the course of this inquiry, evidence of

six witnesses was recorded which included the testimony of

Constable S.S. Sharma as PW-IV and HC D.R. Singh as PW-VI.

5. The inquiry officer has also recorded statements of

Inspector Nawab singh as PW-I and HC Rajbir Singh as PW-III

who had reached the spot witnessed the injuries suffered by the

persons involved in the incident and had intervened in the

matter and also taken further action at the same time.

PW-I Inspector Nawab Singh also accompanied these

persons to the doctor for medical examination and has stated

that the petitioner misbehaved with him and threatened him

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 3 of 11 even while being escorted to the hospital.

6. This incident allegedly took place around 7.30 in the

evening of 13th December, 2000 while the medical examination

took place at about 9.05 p.m. on the same date. Even at that

time, the doctor has recorded that the petitioner's pupils were in

a semi diluted condition at the time of the examination; his

speech was slurred, his gait was wide and there was smell of

alcohol coming from of his breath. In the doctor's opinion the

petitioner had consumed alcohol and even at the time of the

examination was mildly intoxicated. The doctor had also

examined the three injuries on the petitioner's face which

included a small contused swelling on the left side and lower

eyelid of his face, red contusions on the back of his chin and a

small cut on his lower lip and opined that injuries were fresh and

of simple nature caused by a hard blunt object.

7. PW-I had also requested for a medical of HC D.R. Singh

and Constable S.S. Sharma at the same time which have also

been placed before the inquiry officer. HC D.R. Singh was found

to have also suffered simple injuries which included a lacerated

wound on the scalp deep in the left side forehead and above the

left eyebrow which was bleeding and a contused swelling on his

right index finger.

8. So far as Constable S.S. Sharma is concerned he was

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 4 of 11 found with suffered swelling on the bridge of his nose with

clotted blood on his nostril.

9. It is to be noted that the petitioner was given opportunity

to cross examine the witnesses. We also find from the original

record which has been produced before us that the petitioner

duly received copies of the statements of all witnesses.

10. On completion of the evidence of the prosecution, on

10th February, 2000, the petitioner was called by the inquiry

officer as to whether he want to lead any defence but he refused

to do so. In answer to the questions of the inquiry officer, the

petitioner had admitted consumption of alcohol; that no relatives

were present when he was so abusing and the presence of two

other persons who were injured in this incident. The petitioner

also admitted that PW V Constable Ashok Kumar Singh had

intervened and separated the petitioner and HC D.R. Singh.

11. The inquiry officer had considered the evidence and had

submitted an inquiry report dated 20th February, 2000 to the

disciplinary authority.

12. The petitioner admits that a copy of the inquiry report was

forwarded to him under cover of a communication dated 23rd

February, 2000 to which he submitted a representation dated 9th

of March, 2000.

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 5 of 11

13. A separate show cause notice of punishment dated 22nd

March, 2000 was also issued to which the petitioner submitted

representation dated 28th March, 2000.

14. Though the petitioner has failed to place a copy of the

order dated 29th March, 2000 of the disciplinary authority after

consideration of the petitioner's reply to the notice to show

cause, we have carefully perused the same from the original

record.

15. We find that the disciplinary authority arrived at a finding

of guilt of the petitioner in respect of the two charges after a

careful consideration of the entire evidence. The disciplinary

authority has found that it was in evidence that the petitioner

was levelling filthy abuses after consumption of liquor and that

he had beaten PW-IV and VI when they had intervened. It was

also found that there was no evidence at all with regard to any

disputes in the petitioner's family nor any evidence of

justification for abuse of relatives who were absent.

16. The order of the disciplinary authority also records that

orders have been periodically issued which prohibitted

consumption of alcohol even in the lines and consequently there

was no warrant for the petitioner to be consuming alcohol for

any reason in the lines. The disciplinary authority had concluded

that the conduct of the petitioner in consuming alcohol and

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 6 of 11 levelling abuse in the lines was an act of misconduct and gross

indiscipline.

17. In this background, the disciplinary authority found that

having regard to the nature of allegations in the incident in

which the petitioner was involved as well as his past conduct,

invited serious penalty and imposed the penalty of removal from

service upon him.

18. We find that the appellate authority in its orders dated

26th December, 2000 and the revisional authority in the order

dated 29th June, 2001 have reiterated the findings of the

disciplinary authority on detailed considerations.

19. Before us, the petitioner has laid a challenge to these

orders of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate and

revisional authority primarily on matters relating to factual

aspects and details of the incident. It is well settled that the

jurisdiction of this court while considering a challenge to

disciplinary proceedings is restricted. It is equally well settled

that so far as evaluation of evidence in respect of charges on

which disciplinary proceedings have been conducted, the

disciplinary authority is required to evaluate the material which

is brought on record during an inquiry on principles of

preponderance of probability. The matter is not to be tested on

the touchstone of proof beyond reasonable doubt as applies to

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 7 of 11 criminal proceedings.

20. In the instant case, on the admitted facts, it is evident that

the petitioner had consumed alcohol and was leveling abuses.

The petitioner disputes the evidence which has come on record

against him with regard to the persons to which he was abusing.

There is categorical evidence of more than one witness who

were admittedly injured in the incident and that they were

beaten up by the petitioner. The entire case of the petitioner

rests on the fact that he suffered certain simple injuries in the

incident. In the given circumstances, and on a consideration of

the entirety of the evidence which was placed before the

disciplinary authority, it certainly cannot be held that when

tested on the touchstone of preponderance of probability, the

incident as was narrated by the prosecution witnesses did not

occur. In any case, we are not persuaded to hold that even if

the petitioner was leveling filthy abuses against his relatives in

the lines, the same was proper or permissible. The petitioner

also does not dispute the orders of the disciplinary authority

whereby the personnel of the CISF have been prohibited from

consumption of alcohol in the unit lines.

21. It has also been urged by learned counsel for the

petitioner that there is no record of the exact abuses which were

uttered by the petitioner. The perusal of the statements of the

witnesses clearly reflects that there is ample indication with

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 8 of 11 regard to the nature of the abuse which was leveled by the

petitioner. In any case, in the face of the petitioner's admission

of the fact that he was uttering abuses under influence of

alcohol, there is no substance in this contention.

22. So far as the challenge to the legality and propriety of the

proceedings conducted against him on procedural grounds is

concerned, the only ground for challenge which has been urged

before us is premised on the contention that the petitioner was

not furnished the relevant documents and it is urged that

consequently, his evidence has been prejudiced and the inquiry

proceedings ought to be held to be vitiated on grounds of

violation of principles of natural justice.

23. The record would show that the respondents were not

placing reliance on the record of the preliminary inquiry which

has been conducted into the incident by the respondents. The

respondents also placed no reliance on the statement of the

witnesses which were recorded in such preliminary inquiry nor

on the report of the preliminary inquiry. Despite this position, on

a request made by the petitioner, copy of the statements of the

witnesses recorded even in the preliminary inquiry has been

furnished to him. In view of the fact that the respondents have

not relied on the proceedings of such preliminary inquiry, we see

no justification in vitiating the inquiry proceedings on grounds of

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 9 of 11 non-supply of any record relating to such preliminary inquiry.

24. Even otherwise, assuming that such an objection was to be

sustained, it is well settled that the petitioner would be required

to establish that he was prejudiced in his defence by non-supply

of any documents during the inquiry proceedings. No such plea

has been raised. There is also no material on record which could

support such a plea.

No other ground of challenge is urged.

25. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged

that upon a comprehensive view of the matter, the punishment

which has been imposed upon the petitioner is grossly

disproportionate to the charges which have been leveled against

him.

26. It has been noted in all the impugned orders and the

available record would also show that the petitioner has been

punished on ten occasions prior to the disciplinary proceedings

which were conducted against him in the year 2000. Each time,

the petitioner was furnished the details of misdemeanor and the

acts which he was found to have conducted. This factor has

weighed with the respondents while imposing the petitioner of

removal from service.

27. Given the incident which took place on 13th December,

1999 and the admitted culpability of the petitioner therein, on a

W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002 page 10 of 11 consideration of the totality of the circumstances we are unable

to hold that the lenient view deserves to be taken or that the

punishment which was imposed upon the petitioner was

disproportionate to the nature of allegations against him.

The challenge to the appellate order dated 26th December,

2000 and revisional order dated 29th June, 2001 on the same

grounds is also unsustainable in view of the above discussion.

28. For all these reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition

which is hereby dismissed.

                                           GITA MITTAL,J



                                           J.R. MIDHA, J
    SEPTEMBER 20, 2010
    kr




W.P.(C) No. 3317/2002                                    page 11 of 11