Munna Singh vs Director General Cisf & Ors.
2011 Latest Caselaw 3186 Del

*        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                    Date of Decision: 7th July, 2011

+                           W.P.(C) 14610/2004

         MUNNA SINGH                             ..... Petitioner
                            Through:    Mr.K.Vijayan, Adv.

                            versus

         DIRECTOR GENERAL C.I.S.F. & ORS. ..... Respondents
                      Through: Mr.Jatan Singh with Mr.Kunal
                                  Kahol, Advs. for UOI.

         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)

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Perused the report of the Enquiry Officer as also the original record pertaining to the proceedings conducted by the Enquiry Officer.

3. On 26.7.2002, a charge-sheet was served on the petitioner listing three charges.

4. The first charge was that the petitioner filed a false and wrong complaint on 13.4.2002 in which he alleged that senior

officers of CISF has stolen 9 computers belonging to NTPC from Swastik Bhawan on 02.4.2001 and 18.4.2001. It was alleged that it is an act of indiscipline to make false complaints against senior officers.

5. The second charge was that a false complaint was made by the petitioner that senior officers had committed theft in the Switch Yard of NTPC (Dadri) in the night of 30/31.3.2001.

6. Under the third so called charge, it was intimated to the petitioner that his service record shows that he had earned 15 minor and 1 major penalty in the past for indiscipline or for making false allegations, which fact i.e. past conduct would be considered.

7. The record shows that the petitioner was duly served with the charge-sheet and appeared before the Enquiry Officer on 09.10.2002. The proceedings reveal that the petitioner accepted having received the charge-sheet, the list of documents on the basis whereof the charges were sought to be proved as also the list of witnesses.

8. It be noted that at the enquiry the department examined 5 witnesses.

9. Inspector Gajendra Singh appearing as PW-1, SI Raj Pal Singh appearing as PW-2, SI Mahender Singh appearing as PW-3, Inspector D.P.S. Patwal appearing as PW-4 and ASI Chunni Lal appearing as PW-5. Whereas PW-5 proved the service record of the petitioner which shows that in the past the petitioner had to be inflicted 15 minor and 1 major penalty, some of which were for making false complaints against the senior officers, PW-1 to

PW-4 deposed that at no point of time the Management of NTPC lodged any complaint with any senior officer of CISF or the police pertaining to theft of computers or any goods belonging to NTPC from Swastik Bhawan or the Switch Yard.

10. We highlight that CISF is a central paramilitary force entrusted with duty of providing security to, amongst others, public sector undertaking and NTPC is a public sector undertaking.

11. It stands to reason that since the Management of NTPC never lodged any complaint that 9 computers belonging to it were stolen from Swastik Bhawan nor lodged any complaint that any goods or items belonging to NTPC were stolen from the Switch Yard at NTPC, the two complaints lodged by the petitioner against the department are false and he had named senior officers as thieves out of malice.

12. We note that in defence the petitioner produced 3 defence witnesses, being; Constable Dariyab Singh, SI M.N.S.Tyagi and SI B.S.Rathore. The latter 2 stated that they have no knowledge of any theft having taken place. Constable Dariyab Singh categorically stated that on the dates and time stated by the petitioner, no theft took place.

13. We concur with the reasoning of the Enquiry Officer that the complaints pertaining to Article I and Article II of the charge- sheet were false, inasmuch as, there was no evidence of any theft having taken place.

14. Under the circumstances, we concur with the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority that the petitioner is a habitual

false allegation leveller and keeping in view the past conduct of the petitioner, his continued employment in CISF would be unwarranted.

15. We note that since the petitioner had rendered 17 years service, the Department has sympathetically factored in the same, by levying a penalty of compulsory retirement with pensionary benefits.

16. We dismiss the writ petition insofar as it questions the penalty imposed.

17. The petitioner raises the issue of pensionary benefits not being released to him.

18. As per the respondents, the petitioner is refusing to sign the requisite papers which would enable the Department to release the pension.

19. We would also highlight that after he was compulsorily retired from service, the petitioner did not vacate the official accommodation given to him, which we find was vacated by the petitioner in the year 2004.

20. Be that as it may, the issue pertaining to the over-stay in the official accommodation by the petitioner and the appropriate recoveries to be made is not to be adjudicated by us as the same does not form the subject matter of the case.

21. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner did not execute the requisite documents pertaining to release of pension to him on account of pendency of the instant writ petition in this Court. Since the writ petition is dismissed, we would advise the petitioner to sign the necessary documents

required to be signed by him so that his pension can be released.

22. No order as to costs.

23. Dasti.

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG,J

SUNIL GAUR, J JULY 07, 2011 KA