Delhi High Court
Ex-Hc/Dvr Ram Saran Yadav vs Uoi & Ors on 16 August, 2012
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: August 16, 2012
+ W.P.(C) 7266/1999
EX-HC/DVR RAM SARAN YADAV ..... Petitioner
Represented by:Dr.S.P.Sharma, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by:Mr.Romil Pathak, Advocate for
Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. On November 29, 1997 a charge memo was served upon
the petitioner alleging as under:
"Article : I
Prejudicial to good order & discipline in that
No.881350070 HC/DVR R.S.Yadav on 30/10/97 at
about 2040 hrs. physically assaulted
No.751010053 HC/GD Laxmi Chand (BHM) &
No.894290024 HC/DVR Y.P.Singh. This act on the
part of No.881350070 HC/DVR R.S.Yadav amount
to unbecoming of a good member of an Armed
Force".
Article : II
Prejudicial to good Order and discipline in that on
30/10/97 at about 2000 hours SI/Exe Gajraj Singh
HC/DVR R.S.Yadav, L/NK Ranbir Singh, L/NK
R.K.Jhakakkd, Ct/US Rajpal Sing, assembled and
consumed liquor in Barrack No.2 and indulged in
groupism and preplanned for assaulting HC/GD
Laxmi Chand (BHM). HC/DVR R.S.Yadav was
instrumental for this criminal assault on HC/GD
Laxmi Chand (BHM). This act on the part of
HC/GD R.S.Yadav amount to gross indiscipline,
criminal act and insubordination towards the
good order of an Armed Force". Hence the
charge.
Article : III
CISF No.881350070 HC/DVR R.S.Yadav of 1st
Reserve Batalion, Barwaha indulged in gross
misconduct and negligence of duties in that he is
found habitual offender of rash driving,
conviction in criminal case & OSL". Hence, the
charge."
2. The charge memo, the articles of charges, the statement
of imputation relating to the charge, list of documents relied
upon and list of witnesses were all typed in English language.
3. The petitioner submitted a reply to the charge memo on
December 9, 1997.
4. This means that the petitioner understands English
language or was in a position to take help and understand
English language.
5. One of the submission urged at the hearing today is that
after the report of the Inquiry Officer was submitted to the
disciplinary authority and when it was forwarded to the
petitioner for his response, he had requested that it be
translated and translation sent to him for understanding so that
he may be able to file a response to the report of the Inquiry
Officer, to which the disciplinary authority replied informing the
petitioner that in the past all communications sent to him in
English were being understood by the petitioner and responded
to.
6. Thus, the argument that by not supplying the translated
copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer a prejudice has been
caused to the petitioner is rejected by us.
7. Proceeding further, at the inquiry, when the preliminary
hearing took place on January 6, 1998, to question No.4:
whether petitioner desired any defence assistant, the petitioner
responded that he did not require a defence assistant.
8. Thus, the contention urged before us that department
denied a defence assistant to the petitioner, being contrary to
record, is noted and is rejected by us.
9. It is then urged that prejudice has been caused to the
petitioner inasmuch as vide letter dated January 11, 1998,
submitted to the Inquiry Officer the petitioner had desired that
the persons named in the letter be summoned as defence
witnesses. Grievance urged is that the Inquiry Officer did not
pass any orders on the letter in question.
10. The record would reveal that at the hearing held on March
18, 1998, as recorded in the order sheet, the petitioner
withdrew his request for summoning any person as a defence
witness.
11. It is then urged that the entire charge is trumped up and
that the witnesses have purged at the behest of senior officers.
To make good the point it is urged that on an earlier occasion an
order of removal from service was passed against the petitioner
which order was set aside by this Court vide judgment dated
November 07, 1997. It is urged that thereafter the instant
charge-sheet was issued.
12. Now, the petitioner was never removed from service. On
being convicted for an offence under Section 279 IPC by the
Chief Judicial Magistrate Ist Class Bharwaha and punished to
suffer imprisonment for one month, the Commandant issued a
show-cause notice to the petitioner as to why he should not be
dismissed from service. Without considering the reply filed by
the petitioner to the show-cause notice, the Disciplinary
Authority passed an order removing petitioner from service, but
the Appellate Authority modified the said order: Nature of the
modified order has not been disclosed to us by either party, but
was of a kind where the petitioner regained service. For how
else could the petitioner be working with the department son
October 30, 1997, the date as per the charge-sheet when the
offending act was committed.
13. The writ petition filed by the petitioner being CW
No.1423/1995 was allowed because the Disciplinary Authority
had passed the order without considering the reply filed by the
petitioner. Liberty was granted to the Disciplinary Authority to
pass a fresh order after considering the reply filed.
14. No adverse comments were made by this Court against
the Disciplinary Authority and thus we see no reason for the
Disciplinary Authority to issue a frivolous charge-sheet. Further,
the earlier writ petition filed by the writ petition, as noted above
was allowed on November 07, 1997 and the incident alleged is
of October 30, 1997. How would the Disciplinary Authority know
as of October 30, 1997 as to what would this Court decide on
November 07, 1997.
15. No arguments have been advanced before us with respect
to the testimony of the nine witnesses, all of whom have
supported as per the indictment and have proved the petitioner
having physically assaulted HC/GD Laxmi Chand and HC/Dvr.
Y.P.Singh.
16. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition but without any
order as to costs.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J
MANMOHAN SINGH, J
AUGUST 16, 2012/jk
