Ex Cook R.N.Sharma vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4761 Del

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

%                       Judgment Reserved on: August 07, 2012
                      Judgment Pronounced on: August 14, 2012

+                      WP(C) 6099/1999

      EX COOK R.N.SHARMA                      ..... Petitioner
               Represented by: Mr.Vaibhav Kalra, Advocate.


                       versus

      UOI & ORS.                            ....Respondents
                Represented by: Ms.Anjana Gosain, Advocate.

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

1. The petitioner, R.N.Sharma, was enrolled as a cook in CISF. In the year 1991 he was attached with the CISF Unit Nappnaroa, District Bulandshahar, U.P.

2. On October 15, 1991 the petitioner was served with a charge-sheet for having visited a lady fruit seller in Naroa market on 14th, 15th and 16th August 1991 and offered her money to arrange a young girl for immoral purposes.

3. The petitioner denied the charge. An Inquiry Officer was appointed who examined 5 witnesses.

4. Sh.Khetpal PW-1, the person at whose instance a preliminary inquiry had been ordered, deposed that on August 14, 1991, at about 14:30 hours the petitioner came to the thela run by his wife, asked her for her name and house address and offered her a sum of `500/- to arrange a girl for him for immoral purposes. His wife refused to co-operate with

him, but he persisted. The petitioner repeated the same acts again on 15th and 16th August 1991. Distraught by the actions of the petitioner, his wife narrated the incident to him. On August 17, 1991 at about 14:30 hours the petitioner came to Naroa bazaar. His wife indicated to him that the petitioner was the person who had been bothering her and as the petitioner approached the thela, he i.e. Khetpal confronted him and questioned him about his identity, to which the petitioner replied that he was residing in NAPP Colony and worked in a guesthouse. He i.e. Khetpal forcefully confronted the petitioner about his true identity and the petitioner then disclosed his name and said that he was working with CISF. As the petitioner learnt that he was the husband of the lady operating the thela, he i.e. the petitioner panicked and fled the spot, leaving behind his cycle. That same evening, at around 17:00 hours, Ct. Amar Singh accompanied by the petitioner, came to his house, where the petitioner apologized to him. He then returned the cycle to the petitioner.

5. Ct.Amar Singh PW-4 (the person named in his deposition by Khetpal) deposed that on August 17, 1991 at about 17:00 hours, he met Khetpal Singh outside the barber shop, who told him of a quarrel with R.N.Sharma. They met near the barber shop. Thereafter they went to the CISF Mess to ascertain the identity of the petitioner. On reaching the mess they found the petitioner alone in the mess, and upon seeing them he i.e. the petitioner apologized to Khetpal by touching his feet. Thereafter, the petitioner, along with him and Khetpal Singh went back to the market to collect his i.e. petitioner's bicycle.

6. Gopal PW-2, a tailor in the market, deposed that on August 17, 1991 at about 15:00 hours, Khetpal Singh came to him and told him that a quarrel had erupted between him and a CISF person who had fled after leaving his bicycle behind. After some time another CISF person came and spoke to Khetpal Singh and the two left for the CISF mess to identify the owner of the bicycle and after an hour Khetpal Singh returned with two people to take the bicycle.

7. Laakhan Singh PW-3 a barber in the market, deposed that Khetpal Singh was at his shop when the petitioner arrived. Khetpal Singh confronted the petitioner and a heated exchange took place, which resulted in a scuffle. Thereafter the petitioner left the scene leaving behind his bicycle. Subsequently another CISF person came to the spot and asked Khetpal Singh whether he could identify the person, and both of them proceeded towards the CISF Mess.

8. A.K.Pradhan PW-5 deposed that on August 28, 1991 he was ordered to initiate an enquiry against cook R.N.Sharma regarding his actions. He recorded the statements of Khetpal Singh, Gopal and Laakhan Singh during preliminary inquiry.

9. The Inquiry Officer opined that the charge stood established. The report was submitted to the petitioner for his response. Rejecting the response and accepting the report of the Inquiry Officer, vide order dated December 16, 1991, the Disciplinary Authority passed an order dismissing the petitioner from service against which appeal filed was rejected vide order dated June 11, 1992.

10. A writ petition registered as WP(C) 3452/1997 which was disposed of on August 27, 1997. In the writ petition it was alleged by the petitioner that a legal notice sent by him

was not responded to, and for unexplainable reasons, this Court directed the department to decide by passing an order the said legal notice. The fate was well known. On September 16, 1997 the department rejected the legal notice resulting in instant writ petition being filed.

11. Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the lady concerned i.e. Khetpal's wife was not examined as a witness and thus there is no evidence to support the charge that the petitioner solicited a girl for immoral purposes from Khetpal's wife on 14th, 15th and 16th August 1991.

12. Khetpal who deposed as PW-1 as categorically stated that his wife had complained to him of a CISF person soliciting a girl from her for immoral purposes and had done so when she was at her fruit cart on the 14th, 15th and 16th August 1991. That the petitioner was troubling Khetpal's wife stands established by the percipient testimony of Khetpal who has stated that at around 14:30 hours on August 17, 1991 when petitioner came to the market, and his wife saw him, she told him i.e. Khetpal that the petitioner was the person troubling her. He i.e. Khetpal confronted the petitioner and told him that he was the husband of the lady he was troubling, at which the petitioner panicked and ran away leaving the bicycle behind.

13. Now, a conduct of a person is a relevant and incriminating evidence. Why would the petitioner run away when confronted by Khetpal in presence of Khetpal's wife? Obviously, the petitioner had to run because he had a guilty mind. Further, as per the testimony of Ct.Amar Singh, since he had wanted to repossess his bicycle, the petitioner apologized by touching the feet of Khetpal Singh. For a wrong, one

generally apologizes by words and not by deed. But for a moral wrong, pardon is sought, in India, by touching the feet of the person wronged. That petitioner had to seek pardon by touching the feet of Khetpal Singh would evidence that a wrong committed by the petitioner had an element of moral turpitude. PW-2 and PW-3 are independent witnesses of petitioner having left his bicycle in the bazaar and having fled from the bazaar.

14. The petitioner has been convicted at a departmental inquiry and suffice would it be to state that at a departmental inquiry the standard of proof is even less than the standard of proof at a civil trial.

15. That Khetpal Singh's wife was not examined as a witness is thus neither here nor there. There is good and sufficient evidence against the petitioner.

16. We dismiss the writ petition but without imposing any costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE AUGUST 14, 2012 dk