Kartar Singh vs Gnct Of Delhi & Ors.
2013 Latest Caselaw 1658 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                        Date of Decision: April 11, 2013

+                          WP(C) 16867/2006

       KARTAR SINGH                                      .....Petitioner
           Represented by:        Mr.S.C.Luthra, Advocate.

                                    versus

       GNCT OF DELHI & ORS.                     ..... Respondents
           Represented by: Mr.Aditya Madan, Advocate

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE PRATIBHA RANI

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (ORAL)

CM No.18020/2012

It is agreed that the writ petition could be heard today itself. Accordingly, the application is dismissed as not pressed. W.P.(C) No.16867/2006

1. The charge against the petitioner reads as under:-

"It has been reported that on 30.07.2000 Sh.Kartar Singh, Warder, Roll No.466 while performing his duty in Jail No.2 from 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM, committed misconduct in as much as at about 4.30 PM started abusing Sh. Mahavir Singh, DS-I, in his absence at Chakkar, in the presence of Sh. Om Prakash, AS (Internal) and Sh. Inder Bahadur, Chief Head Warder. Thereafter again on 02-08-2000 said Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder - 466 came in Line Office at about 12.05 PM and started abusing L.O. Munshi Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Warder-821 under the influence of alcohol in the presence of Sh. Basant Lal, Driver. The above act on the part of Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder-466 is highly

objectionable and unbecoming of a Govt. servant, which lacks absolute discipline, integrity and devotion to duty."

2. Amplifying, the statement of imputation records as under:-

"It has been reported that on 30-07-2000 Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder-466 while performing his duty in Jail No.2 from 2.00 PM to 10.00 PM reached at Chakkar at about 4.30 PM where Sh. Om Prakash, AS (Internal) and Sh. Inder Bahadur, Chief Head Warder were sitting. On reaching at Chakkar said Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder, Roll NO.466 started abusing to Sh. Mahavir Singh, DS-I in his absence. Again on 02.08.2000 at about 12.05 PM said Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder-466 reached in Line Office and started abusing to L.O. (Munshi) Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Warder-821 in the presence of Sh. Basant Lal Driver. Being his appearance as if a drunkerd, the Dy.Supdt. Jail No.2 vide letter No.F.2/SCJ/CJ- 2/LO/2000/4156 dt. 02.08.2000 reqeusted to the Medical Officer Jail No.2 to examine said Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder-466 and report. Dr. Ram Chander, Medical Officer after examining said Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder- 466 submitted reported that behaviour of the said official aggressive, excessive and unrelevant talking, under influence of Alcohol Intoxication.

Thus, Sh. Kartar Singh, Warder-466 showed misbehaviour under the influence of alcohol, with Senior Officer as well as with his colleague."

3. Four witnesses were examined at the inquiry and of the many documents proved one was a report dated August 02, 2000 by Dr.Ram Chander, Medical Officer of Jail No.2 evidencing that when medically examined, petitioner was reeking with alcohol. His pupils were semi-constricted, speech was slurred, reflects were sluggish and gait was unstable, he was aggressive and speaking irrelevant.

4. From the charge and the statement of imputation, the incident of misbehaviour can be split into two parts. Part 1 was of

abusing Mahavir Singh in his absence at around 4:30 PM, a time which was in between 2:00 PM to 10:00 PM i.e. the duty hours. The abusing of Mahavir Singh in absentia was witnessed by Om Prakash AS Internal and Inder Bahadur, Chief Head Warder. This happened on July 30, 2000. The second incident of August 02, 2000 pertains to petitioner being under the influence of alcohol and at 12:05 PM abusing LO Munshi and Sh.Sanjeev Kumar Warder, which was witnessed by Basant Lal.

5. Pertaining to the incident of July 30, 2000, Om Prakash and Inder Bahadur have deposed as per the charge. Both of them have stated that at the chakkar, at about 4:30 PM, petitioner started abusing Mahavir Singh the Deputy Superintendent.

6. Pertaining to the incident of August 02, 2000, Basant Lal Driver, in whose presence petitioner started abusing, has not supported the case of the prosecution but we find that Sanjeev Kumar, the other person named in the charge in whose presence petitioner started abusing, has supported the indictment by even recollecting the vulgar words spoken by the petitioner. He has also stated that Sh.S.S.Dahiya Assistant Superintendent had heard the foul language and when he had intervened, was made the object of the abuses.

7. The medical examination report of the petitioner to which we have referred to above was tendered, without examining the author thereof.

8. The Inquiry Officer has held that the charge was established. Penalty levied upon the petitioner is of dismissal from service. Challenge before the Central Administrative Tribunal has failed.

9. In view of the testimony of Om Prakash and Inder Bahadur, there is sufficient evidence to prove the guilt pertaining to the incident of July 30, 2000.

10. It is urged by learned counsel for the petitioner that the person abused i.e. Mahavir Singh was not examined.

11. The argument overlooks the point that it was of no use to examine Mahavir Singh since he was abused in absentia. We note that this argument has been noted and dealt with by the Tribunal holding that since Mahavir Singh was abused in absentia, it would be useless to have examined him.

12. Pertaining to the incident of August 02, 2000, one of the two witnesses of the prosecution has turned hostile, but we have the evidence of one witness who has supported the indictment.

13. Pertaining to the medical examination report of the petitioner, the contention is that the author thereof was not examined and hence the report was not proved.

14. At a departmental disciplinary proceedings official documents being tendered in evidence would be sufficient proof because they come from a source authenticity whereof has to be presumed. If the delinquent questions the contents thereof, he owes the obligation to himself to move an application before the Inquiry Officer to summon the author thereof.

15. We accordingly hold that the medical examination report was correctly relied upon.

16. Now, the petitioner did something which warranted he being sent to be medically examined. The said something obviously is what has been deposed to by Sanjeev Kumar. Thus, it can be said that the medical examination report corroborates Sanjeev Kumar.

17. It is then urged that as per Sanjeev Kumar, the petitioner foul mouthed S.S.Dahiya. Two contentions are projected. Firstly that

S.S.Dahiya was not examined. Secondly that the charge was of abusing LO Munshi and Sanjeev Kumar but proof is of abusing S.S.Dahiya.

18. The first contention is met with the response that it is the quality of evidence which matters and not the quantity. It hardly matters whether all who have witnessed an incident are examined or only one. As regards the second, meaningfully read, the testimony of Sanjeev Kumar would show that when he and LO Munshi were sitting in the line office in the company of S.S.Dahiya, petitioner who was in the deodhi, was called and the moment he entered he quizzed: Which F***** has called me? Meaning thereby that the petitioner generally foul mouthed such officer who had called him. Now, the charge is of foul mouthing LO Munshi and Sanjeev Kumar. Though not very happily worded, the charge brings out that during duty hours the petitioner was drunk and was abusive. That S.S.Dahiya told petitioner that he had summoned him, meaning thereby the petitioner's verbal abuses came to be understood as directed towards S.S.Dahiya would not mean that the petitioner has been indicted for something of what he was not charged of.

19. We illustrate. Summoned by an officer to a room, the person summoned does not know the name of the officer who has summoned him. He enters a room where three officers are sitting and abusively says: Who the F***** has summoned me? The charge would be of indiscipline i.e. using foul words before superior officers. That the officer who summoned was sitting in the room may feel that it was he who was abused and may so depose. But the deposition has to be understood in the factual backdrop.

20. These are the only pleas urged notwithstanding a few more penned in the writ petition. These were the pleas which were urged before the Tribunal and no more.

21. We dismiss the writ petition noting the fact that had it been a simple case of being abusive may have led us to have a look at the quantum of the punishment, but it is a serious offence when a Government officer starts performing duties being dead drunk and that too when the duty is that of a Warder in a Jail.

22. The writ petition is dismissed but without any orders as to costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(PRATIBHA RANI) JUDGE APRIL 11, 2013 mm