Ramesh Chander vs Union Of India And Ors
2012 Latest Caselaw 4218 Del

7
*         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

      +      W.P.(C)No.3623/2012 and CM No.7606/2012

%                                 Date of decision: 17th July, 2012

      RAMESH CHANDER                ..... Petitioner
                    Through : Mr. Anuj Aggarwal and
                              Mr. Gaurav Khanna, Advs.
               versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS         ..... Respondents
                     Through : Mr. Himanshu Bajaj, Adv.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA

                          JUDGMENT (ORAL)

1. The petitioner assails the inquiry report dated 24th April,

2011; the order of disciplinary authority dated 14th June, 2011

accepting the inquiry report and the order dated 3rd September,

2011 dismissing the statutory appeal preferred by him.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petition briefly state

that the petitioner was recruited as Constable (GD) in CISF on 21 st

January, 1994. The instant case relates to an incident which

occurred on 24th November, 2010 when the petitioner was

travelling in a public bus from Panipat to IOCL Township. A lady

(hereinafter referred as „A‟) made a complaint to the Deputy

Commandant, CISF Unit, IOC Panipat against the petitioner to the

effect that he had misbehaved with her and touched her

inappropriately.

Needless to say, the petitioner disputed the same.

3. The complaint resulted in issuance of the chargesheet

dated 7th January, 2011 under Rule 36 of the CISF Rules, 2008

wherein the following two charges were framed against the

petitioner:-

"CHARGE NO. - I

"Force No. 944480072 Constable Ramesh Chander CISF Unit R.G.T.P.P. Khedar had come to be assembled in the Company No. 149 in CISF Unit IOCL Panipat on 21.11.2010 for the Panchayat Elections being held in the State of Jharkhand. On 24.11.2010 at around 11.45 AM, he, in the bus bearing No. HR 67 - 5892 which travels from IOC Refinery Panipat to Township, mistreated Smt. Brajesh Sharma w/o Shri K.B. Sharma who is posted at IOCL Plant. Being a member of Armed Force, having committed this kind of act of mistreatment with a woman, Force No. 944480072 Constable Ramesh Chander has shown indiscipline and misconduct and therefore, tarnished the image of the Force". Hence this Charge.

Sd/-

07/01/11 Group Commandant

CHARGE NO. - II

"From the perusal of the service record of the Constable Ramesh Chander, Force No. 944480072 deployed at CISF Unit R.G.T.P.P. Khedar, it is clear that in past also, during his service, he has been penalized with 06 minor punishments by different disciplinary officers. Out of these, one punishment has been for keeping a bad eye towards the women. Such bad service record shows gross indiscipline, negligence of duty, misconduct and a tendency of not improving". Hence this Charge.

Sd/-

07/01/11 Group Commandant"

4. The petitioner was given an opportunity to respond to the

same. The explanation of the petitioner was found unsatisfactory

and by an order passed on 25th November, 2011, the inquiry

officer was appointed to undertake disciplinary proceedings

against the petitioner. The petitioner received the charge-sheet,

memorandum and articles of charges, documents and list of

witnesses. During the course of the inquiry, five witnesses were

examined by the prosecution which included the complainant,

public witnesses as well as official witness in support of the

charge. In support of charge No.2, documentary evidence was

placed before the inquiry officer.

5. The petitioner was given full opportunity to cross-examine

the witnesses which he did as well as to lead his defence. The

petitioner was given full opportunity to make a statement and

lead his defence as well. In fact, the record placed before us

shows that the petitioner was given an adequate opportunity to

defend himself.

6. The inquiry officer had culminated the proceedings and

made a recommendation dated 24th April, 2011 finding the

petitioner guilty of the charges. The inquiry officer reported that

Articles 1 and 2 of the allegations levelled against the petitioner

stood fully proved beyond doubt.

7. A copy of the inquiry report was forwarded to the petitioner

under the cover of the communication dated 26th April, 2011 sent

by the Group Commandant and he was given an opportunity to

file representation against the same.

8. The disciplinary authority considered the representation of

the petitioner at length and found no substance in the claim of

the petitioner to the effect that he had not committed act of

mischief on „A‟ and passed a detailed order dated 14th June, 2011.

After examining the proceeding of the inquiry officer including

the evidence of the witnesses including the complainant,

available on record and considering the defence version, the

disciplinary authority concurred with the recommendations of the

inquiry officer and found that the charges stood proved against

the petitioner. It was also observed that the inquiry had been

conducted according to the departmental inquiry rules and that

the petitioner was given full opportunity to lead the evidence and

cross-examine the witnesses.

9. Further in exercise of power conferred upon it under the

provisions of Rule 32 of CISF Rules, 2001, the disciplinary

authority imposed the penalty of dismissal from service with

immediate effect against the petitioner. Aggrieved by the order

of the disciplinary authority, the petitioner filed an appeal dated

11th July, 2011 under Rule 46 of the CISF Rules before the Deputy

Inspector General (North Zone) raising the same contention as he

had urged in defence to the charges. The petitioner also

contended that six punishments imposed upon him were minor

punishments and such punishments having been imposed, he

could not be penalized second time for the same. The

petitioner‟s appeal was rejected by the Deputy Inspector General

(NZ) of the CISF vide detailed order dated 3rd September, 2011.

The contentions of the petitioner have been specifically and

carefully dealt with in the appellate order and the evidence led in

the inquiry proceedings has been discussed at length.

10. The appellate authority has also noticed that the inquiry

officer had provided the petitioner due opportunity to cross-

examine the prosecution witnesses and to lead his evidence.

There is detailed reference to the statement of complainant „A‟.

The manner in which the petitioner had conducted himself has

also been considered extensively. The appellate authority also

notices experience of the petitioner in the force and found that

the punishment imposed upon him was proportionate to the

charges proved against him. It was concluded that the inquiry

was according to the procedure provided under Rule 36 of the

CISF Rules, 2001 and the inquiry officer had complied with the

departmental policies as well as principles of natural justice. Full

opportunity as prescribed under the rules was given to the

petitioner by the inquiry officer, disciplinary authority as well as

appellate authority.

11. The petitioner is aggrieved primarily because his version of

the occurrence has been rejected and that of the prosecution

accepted. It is not urged that the findings of the authorities are

not based on evidence led in the inquiry. There is also no

grievance expressed before this court to the effect that there was

any procedural violation or violation of any principle of natural

justice.

12. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to

point out any procedural lapse in the action which was taken

against him. The action taken by the respondents is based on

documentary and oral evidence led before the inquiry officer and

on detailed consideration of the same as well as of the defence

set-up by the petitioner.

We find no legal infirmity in the action which has been

taken against the petitioner or in the impugned orders.

13. The writ petition and application are hereby dismissed.

GITA MITTAL, J

J.R. MIDHA, J JULY 17, 2012 mk