Smt. Kanta Rani vs The Registrar General & Anr
2012 Latest Caselaw 491 Del

           *          IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                            Judgment reserved on 19.01.2012
                                             Judgment pronounced on 24.01.2012
+      W.P.(C) 697/2011

Smt. Kanta Rani                                                            ...       Petitioner
                                              versus
The Registrar General & Anr                                            ...       Respondents

Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner      : Mr P.S.Mahendru
For the Respondent      : Mr Syed Ahmed Saud for Respondent No.1
                          Ms Avnish Ahlawat & Ms Urvashi Malhotra for Respondent No.2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.JAIN

V.K.JAIN, J.

1. One Shri V.P.Gulati was facing trial before the Additional Sessions Judge,

Delhi and the petitioner before this Court was posted as the „Reader‟ in that Court.

A complaint was made by Shri V.P.Gulati alleging therein that the petitioner had

called him at his residence and asked him to come and meet her in the Court in

which she was posted. He further alleged that the petitioner told him that if he pays

Rs1 lac to her then the Judge would give bail to her. He also alleged that the

petitioner took him in the chamber of Additional Sessions Judge, who demanded

Rs1 lac for granting bail to him. The complainant claimed to have agreed to pay

Rs.50,000/- as advance on 19.1.2001 along with Rs 5,000/- for the petitioner. On

receipt of the complaint, a case under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1988 was registered. A trap was then laid by CBI on 20.1.2001.

On that day the petitioner came to the house of the complainant and sat there on the

sofa in the drawing room. It was alleged that the petitioner accepted the bribe

money of Rs 55,000/-, from the complainant Shri V.P.Gulati at his residence.

2. Vide memorandum dated 11.11.2005 a Statement of Articles of Charge

along with a Statement of Imputation of Misconduct in support of the Articles of

Charge was served upon the petitioner and she was informed that an inquiry would

be held in respect of those charges which were admitted by her.

3. The Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputation of Misconduct read as

under:-

STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE

That Smt. Kanta Rani, UDC (Under-suspension) while being posted in the

court of Shri S.K.Kaushik, ASJ, Delhi as a Reader on 20.1.2011, demanded and

accepted a sum of Rs.55,000/- as illegal gratification from the complainant Shri

V.P.Gulati, resident of 27/24, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi at his said house at

about 10 AM as a motive or reward and in consideration for securing bail for him

in a case which was pending against him in the court being case State Vs.

V.P.Gulati, FIR No.14/2001, under section 120-B IPC R/W section-7. This

amount of Rs.55,000/- was accepted by her as pecuniary advantage for herself by

corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing her position as Reader working in

the court.

Being a Government servant, Smt. Kanta Rani was required to do nothing

unbecoming of a Government Servant, devotion towards her duty and also to

maintain her integrity but by doing the above said Act, she violated the Rule 3(1)

of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

The above said act on the part of Smt. Kanta Rani, UDC, (Under-

suspension) indulging in corruption with financial indiscipline in discharging her

duties with ulterior motive which constitute gross-misconduct, dishonesty, doubtful

integrity within the meaning of Rule 3 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and

therefore she is liable for disciplinary action under Rule 14 of CCS(CCA) Rules,

1965.

STATEMENT OF IMPUTATION OF MISCONDUCT

That Deputy Superintendent of Police, CBI, ACB, New Delhi reported that a

case was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by Shri V.P.Gulati,

Complainant R/o. 27/24, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi on 19.1.2001 against

Smt. Kanta Rani working as Reader in the Court of Shri S.K. Kaushik, ASJ, New

Delhi that Smt. Kanta Rani (Under-suspension) working as Reader was

apprehended on 20.01.2001 while accepting a sum of Rs 55000/- as a motive or

reward and in consideration for securing bail for him in a case FIR No. 14/2001

under Section 120-B IPC R/W Section 7 which was pending against him, form the

complainant Sh. V.P. Gulati at his residence.

A trap was organized on 19.01.2001 by CBI under the leadership of

Inspector Sobha Dutta, Shri Alok Kumar, Inspector, Shri A.K. Singh, Inspector,

Shri M.M. Ansari, Inspector and other subordinate staff and independent witnesses

namely Shri P.K. Das and C.M. Juneja from personal department, Head Officer,

Oriental Bank of Commerce, Connaught Place, New Delhi. All the trap party

members including independent witnesses and the complainant assembled in the

room of Smt. Shobha Dutta, Inspector. Thereafter all the members of the trap party

except the complainant mutually searched either other to ensure that they did not

carry an incriminating document/article with them and left for the spot. While

proceeding towards the residence of the complainant, the complainant made a

telephonic call to his house for the purpose of ascertaining whether the accused

Smt. Kanta had come to his residence or not and after the conversation with his son

Sh. Pankaj Gulati, the complainant informed that Smt Kanta had come to his house

at about 7 pm and left the house about 7.50 pm and would again visit on 20.1.2001

at about 8.30 am. The CBI trap party members along with both the independent

witnesses and the complainant returned back to CBI office nad it was decided to

lay trap on 20.01.01.

A trap was again organized on 20.01.2001 by CBI under the leadership of

Inspector Sobha Dutta, and the trap party reached the spot (residence of Shri V.P.

Gulati, Complainant) at about 8.05 a.m. Thereafter all the trap party members

including two independent witnesses and the complainant entered into the house of

complainant at 1st floor of above said address. All the trap party members

including shadow and independent witness took suitable positions in the house of

the complainant.

Later on, a lady whose identity was disclosed as Smt. Kanta Rani, Reader in

the court of Shri S.K. Kaushik, ASJ, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi entered into the house

and sat on the Sofa lying in the drawing room along with complainant. On receipt

of pre-appointed signal all the trap party members rushed towards the drawing

room. On being enquired the shadow witness informed that the bribe amount was

demanded by Smt. Kanta on which the complainant took out the tainted bribe

amount from his right hand and the same was accepted by Smt. Kanta through her

left hand and kept the bribe amount with her after checking the same with both of

her hands. On being enquired the complainant also corroborated the version of the

shadow witness and further informed that Smt. Kanta had kept Rs 50,000/- in red

colour shawl in a plastic bag and the remaining Rs 5000/- in her leather hand bag.

After the said recovery from Smt. Kanta Rani she was arrested on the spot by

Inspector Shobha Dutta. Remaining proceedings were also done by the inspector

concerned in the presence of Police officials and public witnesses as stated in the

statements of witnesses, copies of which has been relied by the department and

copy of which are being supplied to the delinquent official. Statements of

witnesses, Police officials, whose name have been given in the list of witnesses

have been recorded in support of case and the copies of the statements have

been/are being given to the delinquent official.

Being a Government servant, Smt. Kanta Rani was required to do nothing

unbecoming of a Government Servant, devotion towards her duty and also to

maintain her integrity but by doing the above said act, she violated the Rule 3(1) of

the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1965.

The above said act on the part of Smt. Kanta Rani, UDC (Under-suspension)

indulging in corruption with financial indiscipline in discharging her duties with

ulterior motive which constitute gross-misconduct, doubtful integrity within the

meaning of Rule 3 of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964 and therefore she is liable for

disciplinary action under Rule 14 of the CCS (CA) Rules, 1965."

4. Since the petitioner did not admit the charge against her, an inquiry was

conducted by Shri Neeraj Kumar Gupta, Additional District Judge, Delhi, who

submitted a report reporting therein that the Charge of demand and acceptance of

the bribe money did not stand established. It was further reported by the Inquiry

Officer that the petitioner had admitted that she had gone to the house of the

complainant on the aforesaid date and time and was present there, and since the

explanation given by her for visiting the house of the complainant was not found to

be creditworthy, her presence at the residence of the complainant, who was facing

trial in the Court where the petitioner was working as Reader, amounted to a

conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant. It was found by the Inquiry Officer

that the petitioner had also handled the tainted money since, admittedly,

phenolphthalein power was found on both her hands and her explanation in this

regard was not worthy of any reliance. The Inquiry Officer also termed her

conduct to be an act of doubtful integrity.

5. District Judge-I and Sessions Judge, Delhi who was the Disciplinary

Authority of the petitioner, after giving personal hearing to her, and after

considering her contentions as well as the material on record concluded that the

petitioner had failed to maintain absolute integrity, had compromised the position

of trust and confidence reposed in a court official in such capacity and her act was

unbecoming of a Government Servant, bringing the entire system of administration

of justice to disrepute. He, accordingly, imposed penalty of dismissal from service

upon the petitioner.

An appeal was filed by the petitioner against the order of dismissal dated

21.07.2009. The appeal was dismissed by an Hon‟ble Judge of this Court, vide

order dated 9.9.2010.

6. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner, before us, was

that visiting the house of the complainant and being found present there was not the

charge against the petitioner and therefore she could not have been punished for the

aforesaid act. A bare perusal of the Articles of Charge and Statement of Imputation

of Misconduct would show that the contention is wholly misconceived, since the

charge against the petitioner was that she accepted illegal gratification from the

complainant at his house i.e. 27/24, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi at about 10.00

am on 21.1.2001, while she was posted as Reader in the Court of the Additional

Sessions Judge, Delhi. It was stated in the Statement of Imputations of Misconduct

that the case registered vide FIR No. 14/2001 was pending against Shri V.P.Gulati,

resident of 27/24, Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi in the Court in which the

petitioner was posted as the Reader. It was further stated in the Statement of

Imputation and Misconduct that a lady, who was identified as Smt Kanta Rani,

entered the aforesaid house of the complainant and sat there on the sofa in the

drawing room along with the complainant. It was also stated that the complainant

delivered the bribe money to the petitioner from his right hand and the same was

accepted by her through her left hand after checking the same with both her hands.

It was also stated that she was arrested on the spot by CBI Officers. Thus, entering

the house of the complainant, who was facing trial in a criminal case, in the very

same Court in which the petitioner was posted as Reader, and being found present

there was a part of the Charge served upon the petitioner. We, therefore, we find

no merit in the contention that the finding of the Inquiry Officer, with respect to the

petitioner visiting the house of Shri V.P.Gulati, an accused facing trial in the Court

in which she was posted as the Reader and being found present there was beyond

the Articles of Charge served upon the petitioner.

7. The second contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before us

was that since the petitioner had visited the house of the complainant Shri

V.P.Gulati, at the instance of one Shri B.M.Bhatia, who was related to her it cannot

be said that her act or conduct was unbecoming of a Government Servant. A

perusal of the inquiry report would show that no written statement of defence was

filed by the petitioner, on receipt of the charge-sheet and the plea that she visited

the house of the complainant at the instance of Shri B.M.Bhatia was taken for the

first time after evidence of the department had been closed. A perusal of the

inquiry report by the Inquiry Officer would show that it was in the knowledge of

the petitioner that the complainant Shri V.P.Gulati was an accused and was facing

trial in the same very Court in which she was posted as the Reader. Admittedly,

Shri B.M.Bhatia was not produced by the petitioner to substantiate the defence

taken by her during the course of inquiry. If Shri B.M.Bhatia was related to her, as

she claimed before the Inquiry Officer, the petitioner could very well have

produced her as a witness, to substantiate the plea taken by her. It was stated by

the learned Counsel for the petitioner that since the relations of the complainant

with Shri B.M.Bhatia were not cordial, he had refused to appear before the Inquiry

Officer. We notice that this contention is contrary to the plea taken before the

Inquiry Officer. The contention before the Inquiry Officer was that Shri

B.M.Bhatia being unwell was unable to attend the inquiry proceedings. As rightly

noted by the Inquiry Officer, had the relations between the complainant and Shri

B.M.Bhatia been strained, there would have been no occasion for Shri B.M.Bhatia

to take the petitioner to the house of the complainant. It had also been revealed

during the inquiry that neither any person by the name of B.M.Bhatia nor any other

person had accompanied the petitioner when she entered the house of the

complainant. There is no material on record to substantiate the plea taken by the

learned Counsel, but, assuming it to be correct, nothing prevented the petitioner

from requesting the Inquiry Officer to summon Shri B.M.Bhatia as a witness for

the petitioner. Even otherwise, in our view, if the petitioner visited the house of the

complainant Shri V.P.Gulati even on the request of a relative such an act would

still constitute an act or conduct unbecoming of a Government Servant since she

knew that the complainant was facing trial in the Court in which she was working

as the Reader and therefore, she was not expected to interact with him in any

manner.

8. We also take note of the finding of the Inquiry Officer that the petitioner had

handled the tainted money as was evident from her admission that phenolphthalein

powder was found on both her hands. The explanations given by her in this regard

was found to be unreliable.

9. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred to decision of the

Supreme Court in Commissioner of Police, Delhi And Others v. Jai Bhagwan

(2011) 6 SCC 376. A perusal of the judgment would show that in that case a

police constable was charge-sheeted for extorting illegal gratification from the

complainant, during security check of passengers of a flight. The police constable

was dismissed from service and the appeal filed by him as well as his OA before

the Central Administrative Tribunal were dismissed. The High Court, however,

allowed the Writ Petition filed by him, and set aside the order passed by the

Tribunal. The appeal filed by Commissioner of Police, Delhi was dismissed by

the Supreme Court, after noticing that during the course of inquiry proceedings, no

witness was examined on behalf of the appellants to prove and establish by any

reliable evidence, that the amount of Rs 100/- was received by the respondent by

way of illegal gratification. Two person viz. Shri O.P.Yadav and Arjun Singh, on

the basis of whose statements, the case was initiated, denied having witnessed the

incident and claimed to be the witnesses only of the respondent returning the

money to the complainant. Considering this as well as other discrepancies in the

case, Supreme Court held that though there was some evidence of return of Rs100/-

by the respondent to the complainant, there was no direct or reliable evidence

which would clearly prove that he had demanded and received an illegal

gratification. The Court also felt that it was quite impracticable that the respondent

could have extorted money in presence of a large number of passengers. A number

of shortcomings were found in the investigation. It was, in these circumstances,

that Supreme Court agreed that it was a case of „no evidence‟. However, the facts

of the case before this Court are altogether different and in fact the charge on the

basis of which the petitioner was punished stands proved from the admission made

by her during the course of inquiry and her inability to substantiate the explanation

given by her for visiting the house of the complainant and phenolphthalein powder

being found on both her hands.

10. We, therefore, are in full agreement with the Inquiry Officer and the

Disciplinary Authority that the act of the petitioner in visiting the house of a

person, who was facing trial in the Court in which she was posted as Reader, and

being found present there, constituted an act which clearly exhibited lack of

absolute integrity, which a public servant must necessarily possess and was an act

unbecoming of a government servant.

11. The last contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner before us that

the punishment of dismissal from service awarded to the petitioner was wholly

disproportionate to the charge proved against her.

12. With respect to proportionality of punishment, we, in our judgment dated

19th January, 2012 in Ex. Head Constable Manjeet Singh v. Union of India &

Ors.: WP(C) No. 2431/2011, observed as under:

"It is a settled proposition of law that neither the Central Administrative Tribunal nor the Writ Court can interfere with the punishment awarded in a departmental proceeding, unless it is shown that the punishment is so outrageously disproportionate, as to suggest lack of good faith. While reviewing an order of punishment passed in such proceedings, the Court cannot substitute itself for the Appellate Authority and impose a lesser punishment, merely because it considers that the lesser punishment would be more reasonable as compared to the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority. The Court or for that matter even the Tribunal can interfere with the punishment only if it is shown to be so disproportionate to the nature of the charge against the delinquent official that no person, acting as a Disciplinary Authority would impose such a punishment. The following observations made by Supreme Court in V.Ramana v. A.P.SRTC And Others: (2005) III LLJ 725 SC are pertinent in this regard:

"The common thread running through in all these decisions is that the court should not interfere with the administrator‟s decision unless it was illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was

shocking to the conscience of the court, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards. In view of what has been stated in Wednesbury case the court would not go into the correctness of the choice made by the administrator open to him and the court should not substitute its decision for that of the administrator. The scope of judicial review is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision.

To put it differently unless the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority shocks the conscience of the court/Tribunal, there is no scope for interference. Further to shorten litigations it may, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment by recording cogent reasons in support thereof. In a normal course if the punishment imposed is shockingly disproportionate it would be appropriate to direct the disciplinary authority or the Appellate Authority to reconsider the penalty imposed."

\ In B.C.Chaturvedi v. Union of India: 1995(6) SCC 749, Supreme Court, after considering a Constitution Bench decision in State of Orissa And Others v. Bidyabhushan Mohapatra: (1963) ILLJ 239 SC and some other decisions, inter alia held as under:

A review of the above legal position would establish that the disciplinary authority, and on appeal the appellate authority, being fact-finding authorities have exclusive power to consider the evidence with a view to maintain discipline. They are invested with the discretion to impose appropriate punishment keeping in view the magnitude or gravity of the misconduct. The High

Court/Tribunal, while exercising the power of judicial review, cannot normally substitute its own conclusion on penalty and impose some other penalty. If the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority or the appellate authority shocks the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal, it would appropriately mould the relief, either directing the disciplinary/appellate authority to reconsider the penalty imposed, or to shorten the litigation, it may itself, in exceptional and rare cases, impose appropriate punishment with cogent reasons in support thereof."

13. The petitioner before this Court was working as the Reader in the Court in

which the complainant Shri V.P. Gulati was facing trial for a serious offence. The

petitioner, despite, being fully aware of this fact chose to visit the house of the

complainant and was caught while sitting there in his drawing room. There is no

worthwhile explanation for the petitioner visiting the house of the complainant and

being found present there. If a Court Official visits the house of an accused,

without a reasonable excuse and is caught from there by CBI officers and it is also

established that she, in some manner or the other, had also handled the bribe

money, it is only logical to presume, in the absence of any material to the contrary,

that the visit of the employee to the house of the accused was actuated by a

dishonest motive. What exactly that motive was may or may not be proved in a

given case, but, it can be confidently said that such a visit cannot be a bona fide act

on the part of a Court employee. We have no hesitation in holding that such acts

bring disrepute to the entire Justice Administration System and have the dangerous

potential of tarnishing the image of those who are manning the system.

Considering the nature of the charge established against the petitioner, which in our

opinion is of a grave nature and amounts to gross misconduct, we have no

hesitation in holding that the punishment awarded to the petitioner cannot be said

to be so disproportionate to the charge proved against her as to shock the

conscience of the Court or to be a punishment which no reasonable person could

have awarded to the petitioner.

We find no merit in the petition and the same is hereby dismissed.

V.K.JAIN, J

BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J JANUARY 24,2012 vn/bg