Ex.Ct.R.S.Punia vs Union Of India & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3664 Del

$~13
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                              Date of Decision : 2nd August, 2011

+                        WP(C) 3012/1997

      EX.CT. R.S.PUNIA                       ..... Petitioner
                      Through:    Mr.B.S.Chaudhary, Advocate &
                                  Ms.Chitra Goswami, Advocate

                    versus

      UNION OF INDIA & ORS                  ..... Respondents
                     Through:     Ms.Sapna Chauhan, Advocate
                                  With Md.Abdus Salam,
                                  Asstt. Commdt./CISF

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR

1.    Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
      to see the judgment?

2.    To be referred to Reporter or not?
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

CM.No.11138/2011 Allowed subject to just exceptions.

Application stands disposed of.

CM.No.11137/2011

1. The writ petition was dismissed in default vide order dated 2.5.2011 which reads as under:-

"As an employee of CISF, being a constable, a charge dated 19.9.1993 was issued to the petitioner under Rule

34 of the CISF listing 2 charges as under:- "Charge-I While posted at East Basuria post in Area-VI he committed an act of gross indiscipline and dereliction of duty in that he on 1.8.93, left the post at 0845 hrs to Gondidih post and returned to the camp at about 1045 hrs without taking prior permission of his superiors.

Charge-II While posted at East Basuria post in Area-VI, he committed an act of gross misconduct and indiscipline in that he on 1.8.93 along with constable Amarpal Singh at about 1030 hrs assaulted ASI/Exe T.C.Reddy, Post Commander. East Basuria post, as a result of which ASI/Exe.T.C.Reddy sustained injuries on his head and stomach."

2. It resulted in a penalty order dated 18.1.1994 being passed dismissing petitioner from service against which appeal filed was rejected on 4.5.1994 and further representation filed was rejected on 10.12.1994.

3. Record shows that Asstt.Comdt.Thomas Mathews was appointed as the Inquiry Officer who examined 6 witnesses of the prosecution and needless to state, ASI (Executive) T.C.Reddy PW-1 was the prime witness to establish that the petitioner had beaten him. Ct.B.N.Pathak PW-2, corroborated the testimony of PW-1. The testimony of PW-3, PW-4 and PW-6 confirmed injuries suffered by PW-1. The testimony of PW-5 established the presence of the petitioner at the Post Command. It was noted that the petitioner admitted leaving the Post but claimed he did so after permission of the Competent Authority which authority he could not name.

4. Having gone through the record we prima facie find no error in the inquiry conducted. The questions raised in the writ petition are the ones which we are repetitively noticing raised by Sh.V.P.Sharma, Advocate, whose instant writ petition is the 11th we have noted with near identical grounds.

5. In each and every petition main grounds urged are that the charges are vague; that listed documents were not supplied; that the delinquent was not given an opportunity to cross-examine witnesses or engage defence assistant and that the punishment order is a non-speaking order.

6. These are the pleas urged in the instant writ petition and for which we find that no rejoinder has been filed to the counter affidavit. In the counter affidavit, vide Appendix-E, it has been established that on 1st August 1993 the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner and in the memorandum it was clearly recorded that the list of witnesses and the documents on which the charges are sought to be proved are annexed as Annexure-III and IV. Under signatures of the petitioner he received the memorandum on 2.8.1993 which negates the plea that the documents listed were not made available to the petitioner.

7. Be that as it may, since none appears for the petitioner at the hearing today the writ petition is dismissed in default."

2. Since the writ petition was dismissed in default, we allow CM No.11137/2011 in which prayer made is to restore the writ petition.

3. Order dated 2.5.2011 is recalled and the writ petition is taken up for hearing today itself with consent of parties. WP(C)No.3012/1997

1. Reflecting upon the order dated 2.5.2011 wherein we noticed that instant petition was the eleventh filed by Shri V.P.Sharma, Advocate in which near identical grounds were raised, we would be proceeding to deal with the issues raised on merits in respect whereof learned counsel for the petitioner has advanced arguments and would highlight, for the benefit of the

reader, that the facts noted by us would show that learned counsel Shri V.P.Sharma has massacred not 11 but 40 other persons.

2. On 2.5.2011, instant petition was the eleventh which we had noted in which Shri V.P.Sharma, Advocate had mechanically raised grounds of challenge. Thereafter, we came across 35 other such petitions. In each one of them we were constrained to comment that it appears that learned counsel had some contacts with somebody in the Central Para-Military Forces evidenced by the fact that about 45 persons whose services were terminated pursuant to different charge-sheets had landed up with the same counsel. Rather than applying himself, learned counsel filed near identical writ petitions.

3. In each and every writ petition, including the instant one, in para 2, the substantial questions of law statedly arising were typed in the same language, only dates of the charge- sheets and impugned orders being changed. In the instant writ petition, in para 2, the important question of law which are stated to arise have been penned as under:-

"a) Whether, the impugned charge-sheet dated 19-8-93 (Annexure. P-6) is vague, uncertain and does not discloses any misconduct against the petitioner?

b) Whether, the petitioner has been supplied with the copies of all the listed documents and the copies of the statements of the listed witnesses alongwith the charge-sheet to the petitioner? If not, whether, it is against the mandatory provision of law and also against the principles of natural justice?

c) Whether, the petitioner was given an

opportunity to cross examine the witnesses?

d) Whether, the petitioner was given an opportunity to engage his defence assistant in the situation that the whole enquiry has been conducted on the oral evidence? If not, the action of the disciplinary authority is against the principles of natural justice and the whole enquiry is vitiated on this sole grounds?

e) Whether, the impugned order of punishment is passed by non application of mind and the same is not a speaking order and thus the same is not sustainable and the eyes of law?

f) Whether, the appellate authority while deciding the appeal of the petitioner was given a personal hearing and if not, whether the appellate order dated 4-5-94 (Annexure P-3) is against the principles of natural justice and the same is liable to be quashed in the light of law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram Chander vs Union of India?

g) Because, the revisional order is illegal and against the principles of natural justice?

4. Indeed, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to the irrelevance of all the so-called important questions stated to be arising but would urge that he would be pressing the writ petition vis-à-vis the question of law raised in sub-para (d).

5. Learned counsel states that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to engage a defence assistant.

6. We had found that in all the writ petitions filed by the same counsel, same repetitive assertion was made and in each and every one, the assertion was found to be incorrect. The position is the same in the instant writ petition.

7. Record of inquiry has been produced in original before

us.

8. The record would reveal that the memorandum dated 19.8.1993 under which the charge-sheet was served upon the petitioner referred to Annexures. Annexure-1 was the charges. Annexure-2 was the statement of imputation. Annexure-3 was the list of documents by which the charges were sought to be proved and Annexure-4 listed the names of the witnesses whom the department proposed to examine. The original record shows that the petitioner received the charge-sheet under his signatures on 21.8.1993.

9. He submitted a reply on 27.8.1993 which was found to be wanting and thus the competent authority appointed an Inquiry Officer to conduct inquiry.

10. Notifying the petitioner that he should appear before him and serving the notice, first proceeding was conducted on 25.9.1993 in which the Inquiry Officer, under the signatures of the petitioner, has recorded that the petitioner has accepted having received the memorandum under which charge-sheet was issued as also all Annexures therewith.

11. Thereafter, on the next date, the Inquiry Officer has recorded that he asked whether the petitioner requires a defence assistant and the petitioner responded in the negative.

12. Petitioner's signatures have been obtained on the order sheet and thus the assertion by the petitioner that he was denied a defence assistant is contrary to the record.

13. Learned counsel concedes that the charge-sheet is not vague. Counsel concedes that all relevant documents were supplied to the petitioner and pleadings to the contrary in the writ petition are incorrect.

14. We are pained to note that Shri V.P.Sharma, Advocate had likewise made false assertions in each and every writ petition and in each and every case whatever assertions of facts were made were found to be incorrect. Indeed, this is the position even in the instant case.

15. We find that all witnesses of the prosecution were examined in the presence of the petitioner and the petitioner was granted an opportunity to cross-examine each and every witness. The assertion in the writ petition that the petitioner was denied an opportunity to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses is incorrect.

16. We note that signatures of the petitioner have been obtained at the bottom of the sheet where testimony of the witnesses have been recorded. The signatures of the witness and that of the Inquiry Officer have likewise been appended to.

17. With reference to the testimony of the witnesses examined, learned counsel concedes that there is sufficient evidence wherefrom both charges stand established but would urge that the witnesses should not be believed.

18. We see no reason not to believe the witnesses and especially ASI (Exec.) T.C.Reddy the Post Commander who was assaulted by the petitioner and who suffered injuries on the head and the stomach.

19. It is true that other witnesses have not deposed of having witnessed the assault but have deposed that upon hearing the shrieks of the injured, upon reaching, they found T.C.Reddy injured.

20. It is indeed a funny situation in Court. With reference to the pleadings in the writ petition and what is to be found in the

record, learned counsel is hardly able to make any worthwhile submission.

21. Wondering what could possibly be argued where the assertions of fact made in the writ petition are totally contrary to the record and lamenting upon the plight of the clients of Shri V.P.Sharma, Advocate, who have been literally butchered by the learned counsel, we are constrained to dismiss the writ petition.

22. The writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

SUNIL GAUR, J.

AUGUST 02, 2011 rk