Delhi High Court
Sant Singh vs Uoi & Ors. on 2 May, 2011
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 28th March, 2011
Judgment Pronounced on:2nd May, 2011
+ W.P.(C) No.79/1996
SANT SINGH ...Appellant
Through: Mrs.Rekha Palli, Mrs.Amrita Prakash
and Mrs.Punam Singh, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
Judgment Reserved on: 29th March, 2011
Judgment Pronounced on: 2nd May, 2011
W.P.(C) No.2165/1996
PRADEEP KUMAR ...Appellant
Through: Mrs.Rekha Palli, Mrs.Amrita Prakash
and Mrs.Punam Singh, Advocates
versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
W.P.(C) No.2170/1996
YASHPAL SINGH ...Appellant
Through: Mrs.Rekha Palli, Mrs.Amrita Prakash
and Mrs.Punam Singh, Advocates
W.P.(C) No.79/1996 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 35
versus
UOI & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, Advocate
W.P.(C) No.2171/1996
VIJAY PAL INGH ...Appellant
Through: Mrs.Rekha Palli, Mrs.Amrita Prakash
and Mrs.Punam Singh, Advocates
versus
UOI ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Jaswinder Singh, 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. Since common issues arise for consideration in the
above captioned four writ petitions, the same are being
decided by a common judgment.
2. The necessary facts which can be culled out from the
records are that the petitioner(s) were employed as
Constables in Central Industrial Security Force (herein after
referred to as the "CISF") and posted at CISF unit lines at
Kasimpur in the year 1992.
3. On 10.06.1992 Deputy Commandant P.R.Ganguly
issued an office order suspending the petitioners pending
inquiry as it was alleged against them that on 09.06.1992
they had assaulted a superior officer Insp.A.K.Sharma.
4. On 24.06.1992, Deputy Commandant P.R.Ganguly
issued Transfer/Movement Order(s) to the petitioners
directing them to report to the CISF Unit lines notified in the
movement order(s).
5. On 24.06.1992 at about 07.10 P.M. Assistant
Commandant Ram Nath Ram and Inspector Makhan Singh
sought to serve the movement orders upon the petitioners
who refused to receive the same, whereupon the said
officers pasted the movement orders on the notice boards
of the entertainment club and fire fighting coy in the unit
lines as also on the main doors of the family quarters of
petitioners Yashpal Singh, Pradeep Kumar and Vijay Pal
Singh and the main door of the family quarter of petitioner
Vijay Pal Singh in respect of petitioner Sant Singh since he
was residing there.
6. On 29.06.1992 the Commandant (Disciplinary
Authority), issued charge sheet(s) to the petitioners under
Rule 34 of Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 1969. The
charges framed against petitioner Pradeep Kumar read as
under:-
"Charge No.1:
Force No.854350940 Constable Pradeep
Kumar presently working in CISF unit,
Kasimpur has been found involved in gross
indiscipline and disregarding the orders
because on 24.6.92 at about 1910 hours, after
roll call in the Unit Line, when
Transfer/Movement Order
No.E.38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn.I/92/848 dated
24.6.92 was to be given to him by the
Assistant Commandant Shri Ram Nath, he
refused to accept it, which exhibit his
indiscipline and disregard of orders issued by
the office.
Charge No.2:
Force No.854350940 Constable Pradeep
Kumar presently working in CISF unit,
Kasimpur has been found involved in gross
indiscipline and disregarding the orders
because on 24.6.92 he refused taking the
Movement Order No.
E.38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn.I/92/848 dated
24.6.92 being issued to him by Asstt.
Commandant Shri Ram Nath for temporarily
transferring him to CISF Unit, I.O.C., Mathura
and thereafter the abovesaid Movement Order
was pasted at the door of his family house but
he failed to comply with the orders and has
been still residing in the family house
unauthorizedly which exhibits indiscipline and
disregard of orders issued by the office."
7. The charges framed against petitioner Const. Sant
Singh read as under:-
"Charge No.1:
Force No.811350022 Constable Sant Singh
who is presently working in H.T.P.P. Kasimpur
Unit of CISF is found involved in act of gross
indiscipline and disregarded orders because
on 24.6.92 at about 1910 hrs. after the Roll
Call in the Unit Line, on giving Movement
Order letter No.
E.38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn.I/92/849 dated
24.6.92 by Asstt. Commandant Shri Ram Nath
Ram, he refused to take the same which
exhibit his indiscipline and disregard of orders
issued by the office.
Charge No.2:
Force No.811350022 Constable Sant Singh
who is working in H.T.P.P. Kasimpur Unit of
CISF is found involved in acts of gross
indiscipline and disregarding orders because
on 24.6.92 on giving movement order No.
E.38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn.I/92/849 dated
24.6.92 by Assistant Commandant Shri Ram
Nath Ram for temporary transfer to CISF Unit
A.U.G.P.P., Itawa, he refused to take the same
and thus the above movement order was
pasted on Notice Board but the said Force
Member did not proceed on temporary
transfer and has been remaining in the unit
line unauthorizedly which exhibit indiscipline
and disregard of orders issued by the office."
8. The charges framed against the petitioner Yashpal
Singh read as under:-
Charge No.1:-
Force No.874380550 Constable Yashpal Singh
who is presently working in CISF Unit HTPP,
Kasimpur is found committed grave
indiscipline and disregard of orders because
on 24.6.92 at about 1910 hours on giving
Movement Order Letter No.E-
38017/CISF/HTPP/Adm.I/92-847 dated 24.6.92
by the Assistant Commandant Shri Ram Nath
Ram after Roll Call, he refused to receive it
which shows his indiscipline and disregard of
orders issued by the office.
Charge No.2:
Force No.874380550 Constable Yashpal Singh
who is presently working in CISF Unit HTPP,
Kasimpur has been found committed
indiscipline and disregard of orders because
on 24.6.92 he refused to receive order of
temporary transfer to CISF Unit, I.O.C.
Mathura i.e. movement order
No.E.38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn.I/92-847 dated
24.6.92 issued by Assistant Commandant Shri
Ram Nath Ram and thereafter the said
Movement Orer was pasted on his family
residence door but he did not comply to the
order and still has been living unauthorizedly
in the family quarter which shows indiscipline
and disregard of the orders issued by the
office."
9. The charges framed against petitioner Vijay Pal Singh
read as under:-
"Charge No.1:
Force No.804351148 Constable VIJAY
PALSingh who is at present working in the
CISF Unit, HTPP Kasimpur, is found to be
involved in acts of gross indiscipline and
disregard of orders because on 24.6.1992, at
about 1910 hours, at the time of roll call in the
Unit Line, he refused to receive the Movement
Order No.E-38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn.92-846
dated 24.6.1992 from the Assistant
Commandant, Shri Ram Nath Ram, which is a
sign of indiscipline and disregard of orders
issued by the office.
Charge No.2:
Force No.804351148 Constable VIJAY
PALSingh who is at present working in the
CISF Unit, HTPP Kasimpur, is found to be
involved in acts of gross indiscipline and
disregard of orders because on 24.6.1992 he
refused to receive the Movement Order E-
38017/CISF/HTPP/Admn./92-846 dated
24.06.92 from the Assistant Commandant Shri
Ram Nath Ram for his temporary transfer to
A.U.G.G.P. Etawah. Thereafter, the said
Movement Order was pasted at the door of his
family quarter, but he did not comply with the
orders and is still living in the family quarter
unauthorizedly, which is a sign of indiscipline
and disregard of the orders issued by the
office."
10. As claimed by the respondents, since petitioners
refused to receive the charge sheets the same were pasted
on the main doors of the family quarters of petitioners
Yashpal Singh, Pradeep Kumar and Vijay Pal Singh and the
main door of the family quarter of petitioner Vijay Pal Singh
in respect of petitioner Sant Singh as he was residing there.
11. On 15.07.1992 the Commandant issued an Office
Order whereby Deputy Commandant Mr.P.R.Ganguly was
appointed as an Enquiry Officer and when said order was
sought to be served upon the petitioners they refused to
receive the same and thus the same was pasted on the
notice board in the unit lines.
12. The enquiry, being separate, against each petitioner
commenced and we note the further journey traversed
separately qua each petitioner.
Enquiry Proceedings against petitioner Pradeep Kumar
13. On 19.07.1992 the Enquiry Officer issued a notice to
Pradeep Kumar informing him that he would be holding a
preliminary hearing on 25.7.1992. As per the record the
said notice was served by affixation by pasting the same on
the main door of the family quarter of Pradeep Kumar as
Insp.Makhan Singh, the person entrusted with the job of
service recorded that Pradeep Kumar refused to accept the
same. Pradeep Kumar did not appear before the Enquiry
Officer who adjourned the hearing for 30.7.1992 and on
28.07.1992 caused to be issued another notice to Pradeep
Kumar informing that he would be hearing the matter on
30.7.1992, which notice was once again not received by
Pradeep Kumar when tendered by Insp.Makhan Singh who
pasted the same on the main door of the family quarter of
Pradeep Kumar. Since Pradeep Kumar did not appear
before the Enquiry Officer on 30.7.1992 he adjourned the
matter to 6.8.1992 and issued a third notice on 4.8.1992 to
Pradeep Kumar informing that he would be holding enquiry
on 6.8.1992, which notice had to be again affixed at the
main door of the family quarter of Pradeep Kumar since
Insp.Makhan Singh claimed that when tendered, Pradeep
Kumar did not receive the same. On 6.8.1992 Pradeep
Kumar did not appear before the Enquiry Officer. The
Enquiry Officer thereupon listed the enquiry for recording
evidence on 7.8.1992 and on same date issued a fourth
notice to Pradeep Kumar requiring his participation at the
enquiry on 7.8.1992 and since Pradeep Kumar did not
appear statements of the prosecution witnesses were
recorded and next date notified was 10.8.1992 for Pradeep
Kumar to lead defence evidence and for which another
notice under Regd.A.D.Post was sent to Pradeep Kumar
enclosing therewith the deposition of the prosecution
witnesses recorded on 7.8.1992 and record shows that
Pradeep Kumar refused to accept the postal envelope which
was returned by the postal department to the Enquiry
Officer. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report thereafter
holding the charges established.
Enquiry Proceedings against petitioner Sant Singh
14. On 19.07.1992 the Enquiry Officer issued a notice to
Sant Singh informing him that a preliminary hearing would
be held by him on 25.7.1992. As per the record the said
notice was served upon Sant Singh by affixation as he had
refused to accept the notice upon which Insp.Makhan Singh,
the person entrusted with the job of service, pasted the
same on the main door of the family quarter of Vijay Pal
Singh in whose house Sant Singh was residing at that time.
Sant Singh did not appear before the Enquiry Officer who
adjourned the hearing for 30.7.1992 and on 28.07.1992
caused to be issued another notice to Sant Singh informing
him that the matter would be next heard on 30.7.1992,
acceptance of which was once again refused by Sant Singh
and thereupon it was pasted on the main door of the family
quarter of Vijay Pal Singh. On 30.7.1992 Sant Singh did not
appear before the Enquiry Officer upon which he adjourned
the matter to 12.8.1992, notice of which was once again
refused by Sant Singh and thereupon attempts were made
to affix the same at the main door of the family quarter of
Vijay Pal Singh which were resisted by the wife of Vijay Pal
Singh. On 13.8.1992 Sant Singh did not appear before the
Enquiry Officer who issued another notice informing him
about the next date of hearing being 14.8.1992 on which
date evidence of court witnesses were recorded ex-parte as
Sant Singh once again failed to appear. The fifth notice
issued to Sant Singh on 17.8.1992 was sent to the family
quarter of Vijay Pal Singh vide Regd.A.D.Post along with the
copy of depositions of court witnesses and the same was
returned to the Enquiry Officer with postal remarks stating
that the family member of Vijay Pal Singh refused to accept
the said notice. Thereafter the Enquiry Officer submitted his
report.
Enquiry Proceedings against petitioner Vijay Pal Singh
15. On 19.7.1992 the Enquiry Officer issued a notice to
Vijay Pal Singh informing him that he would be holding
preliminary hearing on 25.7.1992. As per the record the
said notice was served upon Vijay Pal Singh by affixation as
he had refused to accept the same and thus it was pasted
on the main door of his family quarter by Insp.Makhan
Singh, the person entrusted with the job of service of the
notice. Vijay Pal Singh did not appear before the Enquiry
Officer who adjourned the hearing for 30.7.1992 and on
28.07.1992 caused to be issued another notice to Vijay Pal
Singh informing him that the matter would be next heard on
30.7.1992, acceptance of which was once again refused by
Vijay Pal Singh and thereupon the notice was pasted on the
main door of his family quarter. On 30.7.1992 Vijay Pal
Singh did not appear before the Enquiry Officer upon which
he adjourned the matter to 3.8.1992 and information about
the said date was given to Vijay Pal Singh through a notice
which upon his refusal to accept, was once again pasted at
the main door of his family quarter. On 3.8.1992 Vijay Pal
Singh did not appear and the Enquiry Officer proceeded ex-
parte and recorded depositions of the prosecution
witnesses. Another notice dated 4.8.1992 was issued to
Vijay Pal Singh informing him about the next date of hearing
being 6.8.1992 on which once again the Enquiry officer
proceeded ex-parte and recorded statement of witnesses.
Notifying Vijay Pal Singh on 10.8.1992 that on the next date
notified he had to appear and if he desires could lead
defence evidence and enclosing with the notice deposition
of the witnesses the docket was sent to Vijay Pal Singh by
Regd.A.D.Post which was refused to be accepted by Vijay
Pal Singh and hence closing the enquiry the Disciplinary
Authority submitted the report.
Enquiry Proceedings against petitioner Yashpal Singh
16. On 19.7.1992 the Enquiry Officer issued a notice
notifying Yashpal Singh that he would be holding the
proceedings on 25.7.1992 and when tendered by
Insp.Makhan Singh, Yashpal Singh refused to accept the
notice and thus Insp.Makhan Singh pasted the same on the
main door of the family quarter of Yashpal Singh.
Adjourning the matter to 30.7.1992 on 28.7.1992 the
Enquiry Officer issued the second notice informing Yashpal
Singh of the next date fixed and like the previous occasion,
upon Yashpal Singh refusing to accept the notice
Insp.Makhan Singh pasted the same on the main door of the
family quarter of Yashpal Singh. Since Yashpal Singh did
not appear the Enquiry Officer deferred hearing for
10.8.1992 and on 7.8.1992 sent a third notice to Yashpal
Singh and likewise in the past Insp.Makhan Singh had to
effect service by pasting the same on the door of the family
quarter of Yashpal Singh as he refused to accept the notice.
On 10.8.1992 the Enquiry Officer deferred the matter for
11.8.1992 on which date he recorded the testimony of the
witnesses and on 13.8.1992 sent the deposition recorded to
Yashpal Singh vide Regd.A.D.Post informing Yashpal Singh
that on the next date he could lead defence evidence if he
desired, which postal docket was refused to be accepted by
Yashpal Singh and thus the Enquiry Officer closed the
proceedings and submitted the report.
17. Before we proceed further, it is necessary to note the
evidence of the witnesses examined in the enquiries
conducted against the petitioners. Be it noted here that the
same witnesses were examined in same order in all the four
enquiries. Since all the witnesses of the department have
deposed in similar terms in all the four enquiries we are
noting their evidence in a conjunctive manner.
18. Assistant Commandant Ram Nath Ram PW-1, deposed
that on 24.06.1992 he was given the duty of serving the
movement order(s) dated 24.06.1992 on the petitioners. On
24.06.1992 at about 06.55 P.M. he proceeded to the unit
lines where the evening roll call was in progress. After the
roll call was over, save and except the petitioners he
directed the remaining officers to disperse. Thereafter he
called the petitioners in the presence of officers; namely,
Makhan Singh, Gurmej Singh, Ram Bhagat, Jaipal Singh and
Surajmani and had a talk with them. In the meantime,
Inspector Makhan Singh asked petitioner Vijay Pal Singh to
receive the movement order dated 24.06.1992. On being
asked by the petitioners, Inspector Makhan Singh read over
the said movement order(s) to them. On hearing the same,
the petitioners went from there after saying that they would
accept the movement order(s) only after duly considering
the matter. Thereafter, officers namely; Makhan Singh,
Gurmej Singh, Ram Bhagat, Jaipal Singh, R.P. Ram and
Surajmani pasted the copies of the said movement order(s)
on the notice boards of the recreation club and Gurmej
Singh pasted a copy of the said movement order(s) on the
notice board of the fire fighting coy in the unit lines. He
gave a report to the Commandant and had a discussion with
him in said regard. As per the instructions of the
Commandant, he got pasted the copies of the movement
order(s) on the main doors of the family quarters of
petitioners Vijaypal Singh, Pradeep Kumar and Yashpal
Singh at about 10.15 P.M. -10.55 P.M. on 24.06.1992. In
respect of petitioner Sant Singh he got pasted a copy of the
movement order on the door of the family quarter of
petitioner Vijay Pal Singh as he was residing there.
19. Inspector Makhan Singh PW-2, deposed that on
24.06.1992 he was given the duty of serving the movement
order(s) dated 24.06.1992 on the petitioners. On 24.06.1992
at about 06.55 P.M. accompanied by Assistant Commandant
Ram Nath Ram he proceeded to the unit lines where
evening roll call was in progress. Upon the instructions of
Assistant Commandant Ram Nath Ram, save and except the
petitioners he directed the remaining persons to disperse
after the roll call was over. Thereafter he and Assistant
Commandant Ram Nath Ram asked the petitioners to
receive the movement order(s) in the presence of officers
namely, Gurmej Singh, Ram Bhagat, Jaipal Singh, R.P. Ram
and Surajmani. On being asked by the petitioners, he read
over the said movement order(s) to them. On hearing the
same, the petitioners went from there after saying that they
would accept the movement order(s) only after duly
considering the matter. Thereafter he along with other
officers pasted the copies of the movement order(s) on the
notice boards of the recreation club and fire fighting coy in
the unit lines and made an entry in the Roznamcha Register
in said regard at about 07.26 P.M. on 24.06.1992. On the
instructions of the Commandant, along with other officers
he pasted the copies of the movement order(s) on the main
doors of the family quarters of petitioners Yashpal Singh,
Pradeep Kumar and Vijay Pal Singh at about 10.15 P.M. -
10.55 P.M. on 24.06.1992 and made an entry in the
Roznamcha Register in said regard. In respect of petitioner
Sant Singh he pasted a copy of the movement order dated
24.06.1992 on the main door of the family quarter of
petitioner Vijay Pal Singh as petitioner Sant Singh was
residing there. On 19.07.1992, 28.07.1992 and 02.08.1992
he asked petitioner Vijay Pal Singh to receive the copies of
the notices dated 19.07.1992, 28.07.1992 and 02.08.1992
issued by the Enquiry Officer but he refused to do so upon
which he pasted the copies of the said notices on the main
door of his family quarter and made an entry in the
Roznamcha Register in said regard. On 19.07.1992 and
28.07.1992 he asked petitioner Sant Singh to receive the
copies of the notices dated 19.07.1992 and 28.07.1992
issued by the Enquiry Officer but he refused to do so upon
which he pasted the copies of the said notices on the main
door of the family quarter of petitioner Vijay Pal Singh
inasmuch as petitioner Sant Singh was residing there and
made an entry in the Roznamcha Register in said regard. On
19.07.1992, 28.07.1992 and 02.08.1992 he asked petitioner
Pradeep Kumar to receive the copies of the notices dated
19.07.1992, 28.07.1992 and 04.08.1992 issued by the
Enquiry Officer but he refused to do so upon which he
pasted the copies of the said notices on the main door of his
family quarter and made an entry in the Roznamcha
Register in said regard. On 19.07.1992, 28.07.1992 and
02.08.1992 he asked the petitioner Yashpal Singh to receive
the copies of the notices dated 19.07.1992, 28.07.1992 and
07.08.1992 issued by the Enquiry Officer but he refused to
do so upon which he pasted the copies of the said notices
on the main door of the family quarter of petitioner Yashpal
Singh and made an entry in the Roznamcha Register in said
regard.
20. Gurmej Singh PW-3, Ram Bhagat PW-4, Jaipal Singh
PW-5, Surajmani Singh PW-6 and R.P.Ram PW-7 deposed in
sync with PW-1 and PW-2 pertaining to the events of
24.6.1992 and since all these witnesses deposed
parimateria with the deposition of PW-1 and PW-2 pertaining
to what transpired on 24.6.1992 we need not note their
testimony in detail.
21. In the enquiry pertaining to Vijay Pal Singh, Yashpal
Singh and Pradeep Kumar, one court witness namely, Ajay
Kumar was examined as CW-1 who deposed that on
12.06.1992 office order(s) were issued to petitioners Vijay
Pal Singh, Yashpal Singh and Pradeep Kumar directing them
to vacate the family quarters allotted to him but they did
not comply with the said order and kept on unauthorizedly
residing in the said quarters.
22. In the enquiry conducted qua Sant Singh, two court
witnesses were examined; namely R.P.Ram and Naik
Ramsharan as CW-1 and CW-2 respectively.
23. R.P.Ram CW-1, deposed that despite the transfer of
Sant Singh from Kasimpur unit lines to Itawa unit lines he
was unauthorizedly staying in the barrack of fire fighting coy
in Kasimpur unit lines till 26.06.1992. After the issuance of
the directions by the superior officers to stop providing the
food to Sant Singh in the mess he left from the unit lines
and did not return there.
24. Ramsharan CW-2, deposed that on 24.06.1992 he was
posted as Mess Commander in the mess in Kasimpur unit
lines. In the evening of 24.06.1992 he learnt that Sant Singh
has temporarily been transferred to Itawa unit lines. Sant
Singh used to have his meals at the mess and reside in the
unit lines. Even after the receipt of the movement order
dated 24.06.1992 Sant Singh was residing in the unit lines.
On 26.06.1992 Gurmej Singh directed him to stop providing
food to Sant Singh in the mess, which direction was duly
complied by him.
25. In his report(s), the Enquiry Officer indicted the
petitioners of all the charges leveled against them. In a
nutshell, it was opined by the Enquiry Officer that: - (i) the
evidence of witnesses of the department together with the
entries made by witness Inspector Makhan Singh and
Gurmej Singh in Roznamcha Register establish that the
petitioners had refused to receive the movement order(s)
issued to them whereupon the copies of the said movement
order(s) were pasted on the notice boards of the recreation
club and fire fighting coy in the Kasimpur unit lines as also
on the main doors of the family quarters of the petitioners;
(ii) the evidence of the witnesses of the department and the
court witnesses coupled with the fact that the petitioners
and/or their family members refused to receive the notices
sent by the Enquiry Officer at the family quarters allotted to
them in Kasimpur unit lines (family quarter of petitioner
Vijay Pal Singh in the case of petitioner Sant Singh)
establish that the petitioners were staying in Kasimpur unit
lines even after knowledge of the issuance of the movement
order(s) dated 24.06.1992 and thus disobeyed the said
movement order(s); and (iii) the petitioners failed to
participate in the enquiry proceedings despite due notice of
the same.
26. On 26.09.1992 the Disciplinary Authority issued
letter(s) to the petitioners dispatching the report(s) of the
Enquiry Officer to the petitioners and affording to them an
opportunity to submit a representation against the report(s)
of the Enquiry Officer within fifteen days from the receipt of
the said letter(s), which letter(s) were sent under
Regd.A.D.Post at the family quarters of petitioners Vijay Pal
Singh, Pradeep Kumar and Yashpal Singh and the family
quarter of petitioner Vijay Pal Singh in respect of petitioner
Sant Singh. The petitioners or their family members refused
to accept the said letters as recorded on the envelopes
returned to the Disciplinary Authority by the postal
department. Be it noted here that the petitioners did not
submit any representation against the report of the Enquiry
Officer before the Disciplinary Authority.
27. After considering the report(s) submitted by the
Enquiry Officer, vide order(s) dated 06/07.10.1992 the
Disciplinary Authority held that the charges leveled against
the petitioners have been proved and inflicted the
punishment of dismissal from service upon the petitioners. It
may be noted here that the aforesaid order(s) passed by the
Disciplinary Authority record that all possible efforts were
made by the department to make payment of subsistence
allowance to the petitioners which is evident from the fact
that the notice regarding payment of subsistence allowance
was pasted on the family quarters of the petitioners as
recorded in an entry made in the Roznamcha Register at
0215 hours on 14.07.1992 but the petitioners did not come
forward to receive the said payment.
28. Aggrieved by the order dated 06/07.10.1992 passed
by the Disciplinary Authority, the petitioners filed appeal(s)
before the Appellate Authority wherein they primarily
challenged the action of the Enquiry Officer of conducting
ex-parte enquiries against them. It was stated by the
petitioners that on or around 23.07.1992 they learnt from
some „reliable sources‟ that the department has initiated
disciplinary enquiries against them, they could not
participate at the enquiry as the enquiry was held in the unit
lines and the Commandant had imposed a ban on their
entry in the unit lines. It is relevant to note the following
portion of the appeal(s) filed by petitioners Yashpal Singh
and Pradeep Kumar:-
"28. That the Commandant has stated in his
final Order No.1334 dated 7th October, 1992
that the copies of the statements of witnesses
were also sent by Registered Post by the
Inquiry Officer at the house of the accused. It
may be true because the postman had come
with dak at the applicant‟s house. The
applicant told him that he was present in the
Unit and that whatever dak would come from
the office, the applicant would take the same
from the Company Commandant......
29. That the Commandant has stated in his
Final Order No.1334 dated 7th October, 1992
that the report of the inquiry proceedings was
sent by Registered Post, but the ban on the
entry of the applicant into the Unit Line was
not repealed, the main reason for which was
that when the applicant would not be able to
enter into the Unit Line, he could not say
anything to anybody in his defence. The
applicant has never refused to take any mail.
He did so with the Postal Department only so
that he should be able to submit his defence.
...." (Emphasis Supplied)
29. It is relevant to note following portion of the appeal
filed by petitioner Vijay Pal Singh:-
"27. That in the final order No.1331 dated
6th/7th October, 1992, it has been stated by
the Commandant that copies of statements of
witnesses were also sent by the Inquiry Officer
to the residence of the accused through
Registered Post. This may be true. The Dak
Pal came along with dak at the residence of
the applicant and the applicant told the dak
pal that the applicant was present in the Unit
and that whatever dak would come from the
Department, he would take the same straight
from the Company Commander...."
28. That in the final order No.1331 dated
6th/7th October, 1992, it has been again stated
by the Commandant that the report of the
inquiry proceedings was sent vide letter
No.1289 dated 26.09.1992 through Registered
Post, but the ban on the entry of the applicant
into the Unit Line was not lifted, the chief
reason which being that the applicant would
not be able to enter into the Unit Line, he
could not speak to anybody in his defence.
The applicant has never refused to take any
dak. He only made a request that whatever
dak he will take he will take from the
Department only so that the applicant could
prove his innocence.
...."
30. It is relevant to note the following portion of the appeal
filed by petitioner Sant Singh:-
"25. That in para No.2 of the final order
No.1333 dated 6/7 October, 1992, itself, the
Commandant Saheb had mentioned that all
the notices were pasted at the family quarter
of Constable V.P. Singh. Could not they be
sent through Registered Post that is no
notice/letter was pasted at the quarter of
Constable V.P. Singh. All this story is
concocted one. On the orders of Commandant
all false facts have been fabricated and are
being posed true. Why copies of statements
only were sent under Registered Post as a
result that applicant may remain unaware and
could not say anything in his defence because
there is restriction on entrance in unit line and
one more witness of postal employee could
also be obtained that the post was not taken
whereas applicant from the very beginning
has been praying that restriction on entry in
unit line be lifted and applicant himself will
collect all letters from the department and will
appear himself in enquiry proceedings....
26. That in para No.3 of final order No.1333
dated 6/7 October, 1992 the Commandant
Saheb has indicated that a copy of the Enquiry
Report was sent by the Enquiry Officer under
Registered Post at the address of Family
Quarter of Constable V.P. Singh giving 15 days
to present his representation. When the
applicant is ready to take all the concerned
documents from the department directly then
what was the justification behind sending by
post. The Commandant Saheb can spent
Government money in any way but cannot lift
the restriction on the entrance of the applicant
in the unit line so that all the affairs could be
resolved under mutual understanding....."
(Emphasis Supplied)
31. After holding that the stand taken by the petitioners
that they could not participate in the enquiry proceedings as
the Commandant had imposed a ban on their entry in the
unit lines cannot be believed as no material was placed to
justify the said stand, the Appellate Authority dismissed the
appeals filed by the petitioners vide same order dated
26.2.1993 against which petitioners filed revision petitions
wherein they reiterated that they could not participate in
the enquiry proceedings as the Commandant had imposed a
ban on their entry in the unit lines. Affirming the reasoning
of the Appellate Authority that the stand taken by the
petitioners that they could not participate in the enquiry
proceedings as the Commandant had imposed a ban on
their entry in the unit lines cannot be believed as no
material justifying said plea was placed on record by the
petitioners, vide order dated 28/29.07.1993 the revisions
were dismissed.
32. Aggrieved by the order(s) dated 06/07.10.1992,
26.02.1993 and 28/29.07.1993 passed by the Disciplinary
Authority, Appellate Authority and Revisional Authority
respectively, the petitioners have filed the present petitions
under Article 226 of Constitution of India.
33. At the conclusion of the hearing, the parties were
directed to file written submissions. The parties have filed
their respective written submissions and the same have
been taken on record.
34. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners as borne out from the written submissions filed
may be summarized as under:-
A The Enquiry Officer had conducted the enquiries
against the petitioners in blatant violation of the principles
of natural justice and thus the report(s) of the Enquiry
Officer and the orders passed thereon are liable to be set
aside. Following three instances of violation of principles of
natural justice by the department have been pointed out by
the learned counsel for the petitioner:-
i. The department did not send the charge sheet(s),
order of the appointment of the Enquiry Officer and the
notices regarding dates of the enquiry proceedings to the
petitioners by registered post as contemplated by Rule 30 of
CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. It was further submitted that the
claim of the department that the aforesaid documents were
pasted on the notice board of the unit lines and the main
doors of the family quarters of the petitioners is blatantly
wrong.
ii. The department did not supply copies of the
statements of the witnesses examined by the Enquiry Officer
and the report of the Enquiry Officer to the petitioners.
iii. Mr.P.R.Ganguly, Deputy Commandant, who was
appointed as the Enquiry Officer acted as a judge of his own
cause inasmuch as the movement order(s) dated
24.06.1992, non-acceptance and disobedience whereof
formed the basis of the charges framed against the
petitioners, was issued by Mr.P.R.Ganguly.
B Enquiry Officer Mr.P.R.Ganguly was inimically disposed
towards the petitioners as they had made grievances
against him in a grievance redressal forum and thus
conducted enquiries against them in a most biased manner.
In said regards, learned counsel for the petitioner drew
attention of the Court to the fact that the office order dated
09.06.1992 suspending the petitioners was also issued by
Mr.P.R.Ganguly. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the
petitioners drew attention of this Court to the complaint(s)
made by the petitioners to the Commandant that
Mr.P.R.Ganguly had visited their family quarters on 2.15
A.M. on 14.07.1992. Counsel submitted that the claim of the
petitioners that Mr.P.R.Ganguly visited their family quarters
on 2.15 A.M. on 14.07.1992 stands corroborated from a
recording contained in the order dated 06.07/10.1992
passed by the Disciplinary Authority that an entry was
recorded in the Roznamcha register at 02.15 A.M. on
14.07.1992 to the effect that the notices regarding payment
of subsistence allowance were pasted on the main doors of
the family quarters of the petitioners. According to the
counsel, there was no occasion for Mr.P.R.Ganguly to have
got pasted the notices regarding the payment of
subsistence allowance on the main doors of the family
quarters of the petitioners in such odd hours of night and
that Mr.P.R.Ganguly has cooked up the story of pasting of
notices of payment of subsistence allowance only to justify
his visits to the family quarters of the petitioners at such
odd hours of night.
C The enquiries conducted by the department stand
vitiated for the reason the department did not pay
subsistence allowance to the petitioners who were placed
under suspension which caused great financial difficulties to
them.
D The Appellate and Revisional Authorities failed to note
that the evidence of the court witnesses examined in the
enquiry conducted against petitioner Sant Singh namely
R.P.Ram and Ramsharan that on 26.06.1992 superior
officers had issued directions to stop providing food to
petitioner Sant Singh in the mess in the unit lines
corroborates the claim of the petitioners that they could not
participate in the enquiry proceedings as the Commandant
had imposed a ban on their entry into the unit lines.
E The fulcrum of the charges framed against the
petitioners is that the petitioners refused to accept the
movement order(s) 24.06.1992. Counsel submitted that the
authorities below failed to note that a reading of the
evidence of the witnesses of the department brings out that
the petitioners had merely deferred the acceptance of the
movement order(s) and not that they had altogether
refused to accept the same.
35. Before proceeding to deal with the submissions
advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, we
deem it useful to note the parameters of judicial review,
applicability of rules of evidence and standard of proof
required in case of disciplinary proceedings.
I While exercising power of judicial review under Article
226 of the Constitution the High Court does not act as an
Appellate Authority. Its jurisdiction is circumscribed and
confined to correct errors of law or procedural law, if any,
resulting in manifest miscarriage of justice or violation of
principles of natural justice. Judicial review is not akin to
adjudication on merit by re-appreciating the evidence as an
Appellate Authority.
II Judicial review is not an appeal from the decision but a
review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power
of judicial review is meant to ensure that the delinquent
officer receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the
conclusion, which the authority reaches, is necessarily
correct in the eyes of the court.
III Courts can interfere where the disciplinary authority
held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a
manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in
violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of enquiry
or where the findings or conclusions reached by the
disciplinary authority are based on no evidence or perverse
or such which no prudent person would have ever reached.
If the enquiry has been properly held, the question of
adequacy or reliability of the evidence cannot be canvassed
before the High Court under Article 226 of Constitution of
India.
IV Neither technical rules of evidence or procedure
adopted by the civil courts nor rules of proof of fact
contained in the Evidence Act apply to the disciplinary
proceedings.
V The standard of proof which is required in the disciplinary
proceedings is preponderance of probabilities and not proof
beyond reasonable doubt.
36. The first and foremost question which needs
consideration in the present case is that whether the
department had conducted the enquiries against the
petitioner in violation of the principles of natural justice.
37. While the department has claimed that the charge
sheet(s), notice regarding appointment of the Enquiry
Officer, notices regarding date of the enquiry proceedings,
copies of the statements of the witnesses examined by the
Enquiry Officer and the report of the Enquiry Officer were
sent to the petitioners and that they refused to receive the
same the petitioners have claimed to the contrary.
38. The material on record and the facts and
circumstances of the present case do not support the claim
of the petitioners. The first step taken by the department for
initiating disciplinary enquires against the petitioners was to
issue charge sheet(s) to them. The department claims that
the copies of the aforesaid charge sheet(s) were sent to the
petitioners but they refused to receive the same whereupon
the same were pasted on the main doors of their family
quarters. Thereafter an Enquiry Officer was appointed to
conduct the enquiries against the petitioners. The
department claims that the order of the appointment of the
Enquiry Officer was also sent to the petitioners but they
refused to receive the same whereupon the same was
pasted on the notice board of the unit lines. Thereafter the
Enquiry Officer issued three notices to the petitioners
intimating dates of the enquiry and handed over the same
to Inspector Makhan Singh and Gurmej Singh for the
purposes of delivery to the petitioners but the petitioners
refused to receive the said notices as deposed to by
Inspector Makhan Singh and Gurmej Singh. When the
petitioners did not appear before the Enquiry Officer after
the issuance of the aforesaid three notices, the Enquiry
Officer proceeded ex-parte against the petitioners and
recorded the statements of the witnesses of the department
in their absence. Even after proceeding ex-parte against the
petitioners, the Enquiry Officer issued fourth notice to the
petitioners intimating the date of the enquiry. Thereafter the
Enquiry Officer sent fifth notice together with the copies of
the statements of the witnesses examined by him to the
petitioners by Registered AD thereby giving them an
opportunity to appear before him for adducing defence
evidence and file their reply but the petitioners refused to
receive the same. When the petitioners neither appeared
before the Enquiry Officer nor filed their reply the Enquiry
Officer submitted his report to the Disciplinary Authority.
After the submission of the report by the Disciplinary
Authority, the Disciplinary Authority sent the report of the
Enquiry Officer to the petitioners by Registered AD thereby
giving them an opportunity to file their representation
against the report of the Enquiry Officer but the petitioners
refused to receive the same. When the petitioners did not
file any representation against the report of the Enquiry
Officer the Disciplinary Authority passed order dated
6/7.10.1992 indicting the petitioners of all the charges
leveled against them and inflicting the punishment of
dismissal of service upon them.
39. At this stage, the petitioners woke up from their
slumber and chose to file appeals against the order passed
by the Disciplinary Authority. A very innocuous stand was
taken by the petitioners in the appeals filed by them before
the Appellate Authority. The petitioners stated that though
they learnt from some „reliable sources‟ that disciplinary
enquiries have been initiated against them but they could
not participate in the said enquiries as the same were held
in the unit lines and the Commandant had imposed a ban on
their entry into the unit lines. What were the „reliable
sources‟ wherefrom the petitioners learnt about the factum
of initiation of the disciplinary enquiry by the department
against them? No information on that score has been
supplied by the petitioners in their appeals. It is but
apparent that the „reliable sources‟ wherefrom the
petitioners learnt about the factum of initiation of the
disciplinary enquiry by the department against them are
nothing but the correspondences issued to them by the
department. Not only that, the petitioners admitted in their
appeals that the department had sent the copies of the
statements of the witnesses examined by the Enquiry
Officer and the enquiry report at their family quarters by
Registered AD and that they had refused to receive the
same which is evident from the reading of the portions of
the appeals filed by the petitioners noted in foregoing paras.
It is writ large that the petitioners were acting in unison and
had planned a strategy that they would not receive the
correspondences issued by the department to them and
participate in the enquiry proceedings and take a stand
before the Appellate and Revisional Authorities that they
could not participate in the enquiry proceedings as the
Commandant had imposed a ban on their entry in the unit
lines. When their aforesaid strategy did not work before the
Appellate and Revisional Authorities, the petitioners
changed their stands before this Court by stating that the
enquiry proceedings were conducted in blatant violation of
principles of natural justice and projecting that the
department did not supply them with the copies of the
statements of the witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer
forgetting that they had admitted in their appeals that the
department had sent the copies of the statements of the
witnesses and the report of the Enquiry Officer by
Registered AD at their family quarters and that they had
refused to receive the same. The false stand taken by the
petitioners before this Court that the department did not
supply them with the copies of the statements of the
witnesses recorded by the Enquiry Officer strongly
probablizes that the claim of the department charge
sheet(s), notice regarding appointment of the Enquiry
Officer, notices regarding date of the enquiry proceedings,
copies of the statements of the witnesses examined by the
Enquiry Officer and the report of the Enquiry Officer were
sent to the petitioners and that they refused to receive the
same is indeed correct.
40. The submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that the Enquiry Officer ought to have sent the
notices intimating the dates of the enquiry to the petitioners
by registered post as contemplated by Rule 30 of CCS (CCA)
Rules, 1965 needs to be noted and rejected. The reliance
placed by the learned counsel for the petitioners on Rule 30
of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is most fallacious inasmuch as
Rule 29 of CISF Rules, 1969 prescribes that the members of
CISF in respect of matters relating to disciplinary
proceedings, punishments, appeals, revisions and
representations shall be governed by CISF Rules, 1969.
41. Doctrine that no man should be a judge of his own
cause (Nemo Judex in Recausa) is well known. The said
doctrine is not an absolute doctrine and is subject to well-
known exceptions as it is only propounded on the basis of
principles of natural justice. Doctrine of necessity is an
accepted exception to the principles of natural justice. An
officer cannot be debarred from acting as an enquiry officer
merely because he had issued the office order which formed
the basis of the charges framed against a delinquent
employee. If that be so, the whole system of holding of
disciplinary enquiries would be paralyzed as the same would
lead to dearth of officers who could be appointed as enquiry
officers.
42. „Bias stands included within the attributes and broader
purview of the word „malice‟ which in legal parlance means
and implies „spite‟ or „ill will‟. One redeeming feature which
is now settled in the matter of attributing bias or malice is
that mere general statements will not be sufficient for the
purposes of indication of ill will. There must be cogent
evidence available on record to come to the conclusion as to
whether in fact, there was existing a bias or mala fide
motive which resulted in miscarriage of justice.
43. In the instant case, there is no material whatsoever to
support the contention of the petitioners that the Enquiry
Officer was biased against them. The so-called complaints
have been made by the petitioners after the appointment of
the Enquiry Officer. The possibility that the petitioners made
the said complaints in order to scuttle the appointment of
the Enquiry Officer cannot be ruled out. The records of the
proceedings of the enquiries show that the Enquiry Officer
has acted impartially without any kind of bias whatsoever.
The very act of the Enquiry Officer of issuing five notices to
the petitioners in order to enable them to participate in the
enquiries itself brings out the impartiality of the Enquiry
Officer.
44. Whether the learned counsel for the petitioners is
correct in contending that the evidence of witnesses,
R.P.Ram and Ramsharan examined in the enquiry
conducted against petitioner Sant Ram brings out that the
Commandant had imposed a ban on the entry of the
petitioners into the unit lines?
45. The movement order(s) dated 24.06.1992 required the
petitioner to leave Kasimpur unit lines by 07.00 P.M. on
25.06.1992. However in defiance of the said order,
petitioner Sant Ram kept on staying in the barracks of
Kasimpur unit lines. Looking at the defiant behavior of
petitioner Sant Ram, directions were issued by the higher
officers to stop providing food to him in the mess. We fail to
understand as to how the directions issued by the higher
officers to stop providing food to petitioner Sant Ram in the
mess imply that there was a ban on the entry of the
petitioners into the unit lines.
46. This takes us to the last submissions advanced by the
learned counsel for the petitioners. On 24.06.1992 at about
07.10 P.M. Ram Nath Ram, Assistant Commandant and
Inspector Makhan Singh asked the petitioners to accept the
movement order(s) dated 24.06.1992. At this, the response
of the petitioners was that they would accept the said
orders after considering the same. What was the next step
taken by the petitioners? Did they come forward and accept
the said orders? Did the petitioners leave Kasimpur unit
lines by 07.00 P.M. on 25.06.1992 as required by the said
orders? „No‟. the petitioners defied the said orders and kept
on staying in Kasimpur unit lines. Finally four days after the
issuance of the movement order dated 24.06.1992 i.e. on
29.06.1992 the department issued charge sheet(s) to the
petitioners. The petitioners had sufficient time to come
forward and accept the movement order(s) and obey the
directions contained therein before the issuance of the
charge sheet(s) by the department. But the petitioners
chose not to do so. In such circumstances, it does not lie in
the mouth of the petitioners to contend that they had not
refused to accept the movement order(s) dated 24.06.1992.
47. From the materials on record it is apparent that the
petitioners had defied the orders issued to them by their
superior officers. Not only that, the petitioners were
audacious enough to not to receive only the orders issued to
them by their superior officers. Furthermore, the petitioners
played hide and seek with the department during the
enquiry proceedings conducted against them. The fact that
the petitioners were placed under suspension for having
beaten up a superior officer few days prior to the issuance
of the movement order(s) dated 24.06.1992 brings out
source of mischief in the unit lines. Being a member of para-
military force such conduct is abhorable.
48. The last plea urged was that the penalty levied is
disproportionate.
49. We do not find the penalty disproportionate for the
reason evidence establishes that on account of assaulting a
superior officer the petitioners were suspended and pending
enquiry for said incident were posted out of the unit
concerned for the obvious reason the four were acting in
concert and were creating a nuisance thereby justifying the
four being moved out of the unit. They refused to accept
the movement order. They refused to accept the charge
sheet and the notices issued by the Enquiry Officer as also
the deposition of the witnesses sent to them. They took a
false stand that they were never intimated anything by the
department. We have extracted hereinabove relevant
portions from the appeals filed by the appellants which
show that they were present in the unit lines and continued
to illegally occupy the quarters allotted to them and refused
to accept the postal envelopes when tendered by the
postman. Yashpal Singh and Pradeep have virtually
admitted to have refused to receive the postal envelopes.
Vijay Pal Singh and Sant Singh have tacitly admitted having
refused to do so. It is apparent that the petitioners had a
game plan and being members of a Disciplined Force such
kind of behaviouir/conduct is unacceptable.
50. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
51. Since the petitioners are without a job we refrain from
imposing costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SURESH KAIT)
JUDGE
May 02, 2011
mm
