Hira Lal Sharma vs Uoi & Ors.
2012 Latest Caselaw 4276 Del

$~10
*    IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                Date of Decision: July 19,2012

+                       WP(C) 4149/1999

      HIRA LAL SHARMA                           ..... Petitioner
           Represented by: Mr.S.M.Dalal, Advocate.

                        versus

      UOI & ORS.                             ....Respondents
           Represented by: Mr.Archana Gaur, Advocate.


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


PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. Three points are urged by learned counsel for the writ petitioner, and it is expressly stated by learned counsel for the petitioner that he has been instructed to press only said three points.

2. It is firstly urged that, as pleaded in paragraph 19 of the writ petition, vide application dated August 08, 1998, the petitioner had requested the Inquiry Officer to be granted permission to examine two witnesses in defence i.e. Abul Shamam and Deepak Shamam, which request is stated to be ignored.

3. Not only has the petitioner and his counsel not brought out the relevance of the said two persons and in what manner their non-examination has prejudiced the petitioner, but there is a more fundamental point to be noted, which goes against the petitioner.

4. Original record of inquiry has been produced in Court before us which evidences that after the charge memorandum dated May 08, 1998 was served upon the petitioner and he filed a response thereto on June 11, 1998, considering the response an Inquiry Officer was appointed vide order dated 16/17th June 1998, who served a notice of inquiry upon the petitioner requiring him to be present on July 02, 1998 and as recorded in the proceeding sheet dated July 02, 1998, after completing preliminary proceedings the Inquiry Officer commenced recording evidence thereafter and after the last witness of the prosecution was examined, the statement of the petitioner in defence was recorded on July 13, 1998. Proceedings were closed and the Inquiry Officer submitted the report on July 28, 1998 which was furnished to the petitioner for his response on August 07, 1998.

5. It is thus clear that the petitioner could not have filed any application on August 08, 1998 before the Inquiry Officer, as claimed in the writ petition. Needless to state, no such application exists in the record of the Inquiry Officer and indeed none could exist since the Inquiry Officer became functous officio on July 28, 1998 when he submitted the report along with the record of inquiry to the Disciplinary Authority.

6. It is then urged, as pleaded in paragraph 18 of the writ petition, that defence assistant was denied to the petitioner.

7. We note that in paragraph 18 of the petition various pleas of fact have been pleaded, one of which is that a defence assistant was denied.

8. The record of the inquiry produced before us would reveal, a fact noted by us herein above that the inquiry officer held a preliminary hearing on July 02, 1998, in which he

recorded satisfaction of the petitioner having received the charge memorandum, having understood the same, having no objection to the inquiry being conducted by the Inquiry Officer etc. etc. and one query put to the petitioner i.e. query No.4 was whether the petitioner desires to take assistance by appointing a defence assistant and the petitioner responding thereto : That he desires none and would defend himself in person.

9. It is lastly urged, another point of fact pleaded in paragraph 18 of the writ petition that the petitioner had moved an application on July 06, 1998, copy annexed as Annexure P- 8, wherein he had requested three documents which were not supplied. Learned counsel states that these documents were vital to the defence, but in what manner? The counsel is unable to answer.

10. Record shows that with reference to petitioner's application dated July 06, 1998, two out of the three documents sought for by the petitioner were supplied to him and as regards the third i.e. rojnamcha entries sought by the petitioner, he was informed that not being available in the office of the Commandant, petitioner may obtain the same from the GLK Sector.

11. Thus, of the three documents sought by the petitioner, two were admittedly supplied. As regards the rojnamcha entries, petitioner was instructed to obtain the same from the GLK Sector. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was unable to obtain the same or that he required official assistance to obtain the same. Besides, in what manner prejudice has been caused by not supplying the rojnamcha entries has neither been pleaded nor made good.

12. No other point is urged, but before passing the final direction we note that the petitioner was charge-sheeted for not turning up for duty at 2100 hours on the intervening night of 14th and 15th March 1998 at IKADA Rig of ONGC at Nazira (Assam) (a BODO infested area) and when presence detected was found under influence of alcohol and having misbehaved with Shri S.N.Malhotra, the Assistant Commandant and that very night a hacksaw blade, a spanner, a frame and iron and brass nuts and bolts belonging to ONGC found from his possession. As regards the articles belonging to ONGC recovered from the possession of the petitioner he never disputed said recovery but pleaded possession by saying that an employee of ONGC had entrusted the same to him for custody, which employee was never examined in defence.

13. As regards the charges, we find that various witnesses have been examined by the prosecution who have made good the charge, and in respect of which no submissions whatsoever have been advanced before us at the hearing today.

14. The petitioner has been removed from service.

15. The writ petition is dismissed but we impose no costs since the petitioner is without a job.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(MANMOHAN SINGH) JUDGE JULY 19, 2012 dk