R.K.Lakra vs Union Of India
2011 Latest Caselaw 397 Del

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                   Date of Decision : 24th January, 2011

+                        W.P.(C) 370/1988

        R.K.LAKRA                               ..... Petitioner
                    Through:   Mr.Ajit Kumar and Mr.Rajesh
                               Singh, Advocates.

                               versus

        UNION OF INDIA                        ..... Respondent
                  Through:     Mr.Ankur Chhibber, Advocate.

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESH KAIT

     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.

1. The 3 charges framed against the petitioner were as under:-

"Article of Charge No.I No.7108177 Constable Rajinder Kumar Lakra was detailed for duty from 2100 hrs. on 11.2.84 to 0500 hrs on 12.2.84 with Rifle at „F‟ Coy lines. He was supposed to handover the charge of his duty to the „A‟ Shift sentry of 12.2.84. But it is reported that he had left his duty at about 0415 hrs. On 12.2.84 without handing over his charge to Constable R.P.Sharma who was detailed for duty from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs. on 12.2.84. It is also reported that before leaving his duty post, he went to the cot of constable R.P.Sharma at about 0415 hrs. On 12.2.84 and left the barracks leaving the Rifle, 4 rounds of ammunitions and beat book there without proper handing and taking over.

Article of Charge No.II No.7108177 Constable Rajinder Kumar Lakra was detailed for duty with Rifle from 2100 hrs. on 11.2.84 to 0500 hrs on 12.2.84 at „F‟ Coy lines. It is reported that in addition to other items, Constable Rajinder Kumar Lakra took charge of 4 (Four) numbers of steel rods in the Beat Book, but at about 0415 hrs. on 12.2.84 he reportedly left his duty post without handing over his charge to the next sentry constable R.P.Sharma detailed for duty from 0500 hrs to 1300 hrs on 12.2.84. Constable R.P.Sharma therefore turned up for duty at about 0415 hrs. and when he started checking of the items mentioned in the Beat Book to ensure its physical existence, he found one iron rod missing. He, therefore, reported the matter to the CHM Head Constable H.R.Patwa. Head Constable patwa also verified the information and found it to be correct. He, therefore, recorded the matter in the beat book and also in the Coy. G.D. Vide serial No.7232 dated 12.2.84.

Article of Charge No.III It is reported that on 12.2.84 at about 0530 hrs. No.7108177 Constable Rajinder Kumar Lakra entered EJC yard through TXR Gate along with Constable Ranvir Singh without any deployed duty. He thereafter proceeded towards sick line area and reportedly removed an iron rod from the derailed wagon No.NR-1206 of 36 yard of EJC Yard without any permission or authority at about 0600 hrs on 12.2.84. Constable B.D.Oraon, who was on patrolling duty saw Constable Rajinder Kumar Lakra and constable Ranvir Singh removing the steel rod and asked them as to why they were removing the same. In reply they told that they were taking the rod for use in the company. Constable B.D.Oraon directed them not to take the steel rod but they did not pay any heed to him and took away the steel rod in spite of strong opposition. He reported the matter to the Duty officer ASI S.N.Singh, Constable Soma Oraon, the a Shift sentry of Coal Berth-I on 12.2.84 and Head Constable S.S.Behera Patrolling sentry of Sick line also saw

constable Rajinder Kumar Lakra and Constable Ranvir Singh carrying away the iron rod at about 0605 hrs. on 12.2.84."

2. A bare reading of the 3 Articles of Charge would reveal that at the core of the matter is the allegation that petitioner abandoned duty at 04:15 hours on 12.2.1984; duty being till 05:00 hours and left his rifle, 4 rounds of ammunition and the beat book without proper handing over at the barrack of Ct.R.P.Sharma who found that of the 4 number of steel rods issued to the petitioner, one was missing when the petitioner abandoned duty and that around said time petitioner removed an iron rod from derailed wagon No.NR-1206 at EJC yard without permission from the authority.

3. If true, it is obviously a case of petitioner losing 1 iron rod and to make good the loss removing 1 iron rod from a derailed railway wagon, without the permission of the Competent Authority.

4. During inquiry 6 witnesses were examined and needless to state the star witness of the prosecution was Ct.R.P.Sharma. He deposed that duty time assigned to him as line sentry duty was to commence at 05:00 hours on 12.2.1984 and was to end at 13:00 hours and prior thereto the petitioner was on duty as line sentry till 05:00 hours. When he was sleeping in his barrack, at around 04:00 hours he was woken up by the petitioner and was informed that since he i.e. Ct.R.P.Sharma was detailed for the next shift he was keeping the rifle, ammunition and beat book on his cot and thereafter petitioner left. When he i.e. Ct.R.P.Sharma got up at 04:10 hours he

realized that the petitioner had left the charge without proper handing over of the arms and ammunition and this was immediately reported by him to HC H.R.Patwa (PW-2) who directed him to check the materials running on charge and on inspection he found 1 steel rod missing information whereof was given by him to HC H.R.Patwa. He deposed further that around 07:30 hours he saw petitioner in company of 3 civilians approach the barrack with a steel rod. Petitioner directed the civilians to throw the rod in the stock where other rods were lying and uttered "Pura hua" (the stock is complete).

5. Relevant would it be to note that a suggestion was given to PW-1 during cross-examination by the petitioner that it was he i.e. Ct.R.P.Sharma who had asked the petitioner to leave after keeping the rifle, ammunition and beat book on his i.e. Ct.R.P.Sharma‟s cot for the reason Ct.R.P.Sharma wanted to sleep more, a suggestion which was denied.

6. HC H.R.Patwa (PW-2) deposed in sync with the testimony of Ct.R.P.Sharma to the extent Ct.R.P.Sharma deposed about the involvement of HC H.R.Patwa at the relevant time. He additionally stated that later on the petitioner informed him that the missing steel rod had been recovered from a drain (nallah).

7. Ct.B.D.Oraon deposed that while he was on patrol duty on 12.2.1984, at around 06:00 hours he saw petitioner along with Ct.Ranvir Singh pulling an iron rod from a derailed wagon and when he enquired the petitioner informed him that the rod was required at the Coy and for which he had obtained necessary permission. HC S.S.Behra PW-4 corroborated PW-3 stating that he i.e. HC S.S.Behra was on duty. Nk.B.L.Saha PW-

5 deposed that while on patrol duty, at 05:30 hours he saw petitioner in company of Ct.Ranvir Singh proceeding towards the Sick Lines. Insp.M.S.Gyan PW-6 deposed that on 12.2.1984 HC H.R.Patwa informed him of petitioner having left his post without being relieved and a steel rod missing from the stock and later on the petitioner along with another personnel returning the rod.

8. In view of the overwhelming evidence led and as briefly noted hereinabove, the verdict of guilt returned by the Inquiry Officer can hardly be questioned by the petitioner and indeed, notwithstanding all and sundry grounds raised in the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioner concedes to there being overwhelming evidence against the petitioner, but still urges that by not examining Ct.D.A.Swamy, who was also deployed on sentry line duty, the best witness of the prosecution has been deliberately kept back.

9. We just do not understand the logic of the submission.

10. Suffice would it be to state that petitioner was a constable of the Central Industrial Security Force and the unit to which he was attached was in charge of the Port Trust Complex in Calcutta. It is apparent that a large area had to be secured and not one, but many personnel were on duty. Thus, we see no logic in the submission that Ct.D.A.Swamy not being examined was fatal to the case of the prosecution.

11. We have noted herein above that the petitioner had made a suggestion to PW-1 that he i.e. the petitioner had left the arms and ammunition issued to him as also the beat book at the asking of PW-1, which suggestion itself establishes that the petitioner did not hand over the arms and ammunitions as

per the rules prescribed. Now, petitioner had no business, even if somebody asked him to leave without formally handing over the arms and ammunitions, to leave the duty place without completing the formalities required. We need not emphasize the importance of securing proper custody of arms and ammunitions and indeed where a jawan of a para-military force leaves them without proper entrustment, it would be a case of a serious violation.

12. That apart, the petitioner never refuted that his duty was till 05:00 hours and thus we see no reason why he left the sentry line at 04:15 hours. There is ample evidence to establish that of the 4 iron rods entered in the beat book were entrusted to him and he was responsible for 1 iron rod going missing and when he realized that the loss was detected, he attempted to remove one from a derailed railway wagon and made good the loss, an act which is illegal and unlawful. We have seen the inquiry record which shows that on each stage opportunity was given to the petitioner to cross-examine the witnesses and he did so. The grievance that he was not given an opportunity to object to the appointment of the Inquiry Officer, is neither here nor there for the reason no provision has been shown to us which enjoins a duty upon the Disciplinary Authority to seek a response from the charged officer whether he has any objection to the person appointed as the Inquiry Officer to conduct the inquiry. Similarly, the plea that the petitioner was not given a fair opportunity to appoint a defence assistant is neither here nor there for the reason we find that the charge memo dated 6.3.1984 was served upon the petitioner within 2 days thereof with a

direction that within 10 days reply should be filed. Petitioner filed the reply on 16.3.1984. Finding the same inadequate an inquiry officer was appointed who commenced recording of evidence on 9.4.1984. The petitioner had enough time to engage a defence assistant. Relevant would it be to note that it is not the case of the petitioner that he had informed the inquiry officer of having appointed somebody as his defence assistant and that said person was not permitted to defend him.

13. No other point has been urged.

14. The writ petition is dismissed.

15. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(SURESH KAIT) JUDGE

JANUARY 24, 2011 dk