Ram Chander And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors
2013 Latest Caselaw 3172 Del

$~3 & 4 (Common Order)


*     IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+                         W.P.(C) 6632/2011



%                                    Date of decision: 24th July, 2013.

      RAM CHANDER AND ORS.                              ..... Petitioners
                      Through :                Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with
                                               Ms.Tinu Bajma, Ms.Sahilla Lamba
                                               and Mr.Amandeep Joshi, Advocates
                          versus

      UNION OF INDIA AND ORS                           ..... Respondents

                        Through :              Mr.Arvind Kumar Shukla, Mr.Alok
                                               Shukla, Mr.Shivom Tandon and
                                               Mr.Shivanshu Bajpai, Advocates.
                                   AND

+                         W.P.(C) 7756/2011

      KRISHAN KUMAR                                   ..... Petitioner
                                   Through :   Ms.Jyoti Singh, Sr. Adv. with
                                               Ms.Tinu Bajma, Ms.Sahilla Lamba
                                               and Mr.Amandeep Joshi, Advocates
                          versus

      UOI AND ORS                                     ..... Respondents
                                   Through :   Mr.Arvind Kumar Shukla, Mr.Alok
                                               Shukla, Mr.Shivom Tandon and
                                               Mr.Shivanshu Bajpai, Advocates.
      CORAM:
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE GITA MITTAL
      HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA



 GITA MITTAL, J (Oral)

1. These writ petitions emanate from the common incident which occurred in

the night intervening 1/2-07-2006 in Train No.8237 up Chattisgarh Express from

New Delhi Railway Station to Jalandhar City. Both the petitioners were charged

with the same charge and subjected to common disciplinary proceedings.

Inasmuch as the writ petitions raise similar question of fact of law, they are taken

up together for consideration. With the consent of both the parties, we have heard

the writ petitions finally.

2. The facts giving rise to the present petitions are within a narrow compass

and are mainly undisputed. To the extent necessary, the same are briefly noted

hereinafter.

3. It is an admitted position that the petitioners were recruited as Constables

with the Railway Protection Force. On 2.7.2006, these petitioners were on Escort

Duty on Train No.8237 up Chattisgarh Express which was to travel between New

Delhi Railway Station to Jalandhar City. The petitioners contend that the escort

party was led by its Incharge ASI/RPF Shri Ran Singh as well as Constable

Joginder Singh.

4. The petitioner complain that they have been wrongly implicated in a false

complaint made by one Shri Kuldeep Panwar who was actually guilty of

suspicious conduct and travelling unauthorisedly in the train. It is complained that

when the petitioners confronted him, he resorted to implicating them falsely,

resulting in the disciplinary action against them.

5. On the other hand, Shri Kuldeep Panwar has complained that on 1 st July,

2006 at about 11.20 p.m. he was travelling from Ghaziabad to Saharnpur by the

said train on a valid ticket. While alighting from the train at about 3 a.m. on 2nd

July, 2006 at Saharanpur Railway Station, which was his destination, three

G.R.P.F. Jawans who were in uniform but without name tags and were calling each

other by the names of Krishna and Ram Chander forcibly stopped him and

demanded his ticket from him. The complainant alleges that he had shown them

the ticket, at which they demanded an amount of Rs.300/-. The complainant

resisted this demand as he was carrying a valid ticket.

6. The complainant has also further alleged that the said three constables

abused, thrashed and beat the complainant with their fist, blows and canes and

forcibly took away Rs.500/- from his shirt pocket. Despite protest by co-

passengers, the constables persisted with the illegal action and threatened the

passengers as well. When the complainant informed the constables that he was

going to complain to the GRP police station about their conduct, they became more

threatening. The complainant has also made a grievance that the constables had

prepared a false receipt relating to the complainant and procured his signatures on

some blank papers and threatened him that they will use these blank papers on

which they had procured his signatures and would kill him. The complainant was

permitted to alight from the train only at Sirhind Railway station in an injured

condition. He returned to his house by Jalandhar-Delhi Super Fast Train; got his

injuries medically examined and thereafter lodged complaint in the night of 2nd

July, 2006 with the Police Station GRP, Saharanpur on 2.7.2006.

7. It is noteworthy that along with the complaint, the complainant had

enclosed his ticket; the receipt as well as the record of his medical check up i.e. the

MLC. It is admitted before us that FIR No.111/2006 was registered by the Police

Station GRP, Saharanpur on 2nd July, 2006 under Sections 384/342/504/506/323 of

the Indian Penal Code. It appears that the complainant also lodged a complaint

with the petitioners' office on 2nd July, 2006 itself.

8. We are informed that on 4th July, 2006, the petitioners were suspended from

duty by the respondents. Thereafter a preliminary inquiry was conducted into the

above allegations against the conduct of the petitioners and vide an order dated 6th

July, 2006 they were both dismissed from service. The petitioner appealed against

the dismissal. The appellate authority passed an order dated 29 th December, 2006

holding that the petitioner could not have been dismissed without a proper inquiry

and compliance of principles of natural justice. As a result, the petitioners were

reinstated into service.

9. The respondents thereafter issued a charge sheet to the petitioners alleging as

follows:

"H/Constable Ram Chander S/o Sh.Amar Singh of RPF/Post Delhi Kishan Ganj is charged for gross indiscipline and neglect in duty in that he was while on train escorting duty along with Ct.Krishan Kumar in train No.8327 up Chattisgarh Express on the night of 1-2/7/2006 extorted Rs.500/- tortured one passenger namely Sh.Kuldeep Panwar S/o Late Sh.Rampal Singh R/o 700 New Awas Vikas Colony Saharanpur who was having ticket from GZB to SRE. He did not allow the passenger to get down at SRE and took him up to Sirhind.

Constable Krishan Kumar S/o Sh. Ranjeet Singh of RPF/Post Delhi Kishan Ganj is charged for gross indiscipline and neglect in duty in that he was while on train escorting duty along with H/C Ram Chander in train No.8327 up Chattisgarh Express on the night of 1-2/7/2006 extorted Rs.500/-, tortured and did not allow the passenger namely Sh.Kuldeep Panwar S/o Late Sh.Ram Pal Singh R/o 700 New Avas Vikas Colony Saharanpur who was having ticket from GZB to SRE. He did not allow the passenger to get down at SRE and took him up to Sirhind."

10. It is not disputed that the petitioners were given a fair and adequate

opportunity to defend themselves in the disciplinary inquiry proceedings. The

inquiry officer recorded the evidence of three prosecution witnesses including the

complainant and the petitioners were given adequate opportunity to cross examine

the witnesses, which they availed. The petitioner also made defence statements

and chose to lead defence, examining two witnesses in support of their plea of

innocence.

11. We are informed that by an inquiry report dated 28th July, 2007, the inquiry

officer found that the petitioner Krishan Kumar had not allowed the complainant to

alight from the train at Saharanpur even though he was carrying a proper ticket

from Sahadra to Saharanpur and took him upto Sirhind. The inquiry officer,

however, found that the charge of Rs.500/- having been snatched from the

complainant by Ct.Krishan Kumar was not proved as the complainant had not

produced any evidence.

12. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has challenged the findings of the

inquiry officer on the ground that there was no reliable evidence to support the

same. It is further contended that the findings of the inquiry officer are in the

realm of conjectures and that he has presumed that Constable Krishan Kumar had

demanded money from the complainant and that therefore there was a tiff between

them.

13. So far as Ram Chander is concerned, the enquiry officer has submitted

report dated 9.8.2007 and returned similar findings in a separate report dated 28th

July, 2007 against Krishan Kumar.

14. The copies of the inquiry reports were duly furnished to the petitioners who

represented against them. The disciplinary authority has considered the matter and

by two separate orders, agreed with the findings of the enquiry officer. So far as

H/Ct.Ram Chander is concerned, vide an order dated 5.9.2007, the disciplinary

authority held him guilty of the charges. However, despite the charges being

grave, keeping in view his previous record and length of service, the disciplinary

authority took a lenient view and gave him one chance to improve himself. As

such, disciplinary authority awarded punishment of withholding of his increments

for a period of three years vide order dated 5.9.2007.

15. A similar order was passed so far as Ct.Krishan Kumar was concerned by

the disciplinary authority on 31.8.2007 and the same punishment was imposed

upon him. The disciplinary authority has also noted the circumstances that no

report was given against the complainant Shri Kuldeep Panwar by the delinquent

officers the present petitioners on arrival at the junction on 2nd July, 2006 after

completion of their escort duty. This circumstance casts doubt on the veracity of

the petitioners contentions.

16. Before us, no submission is made that the petitioners were deprived of due

and fair opportunity during the inquiry proceedings or denied opportunity to

produce defence. No violation of procedure or principles of natural justice is

pointed out in the disciplinary proceedings on impugned orders.

17. We may note that the petitioner assailed the order and punishment imposed

by the disciplinary authority by way of statutory appeals. H/Ct. Ram Chander filed

an appeal dated 2.11.2007 which was rejected vide an order dated 10.12.2007.

H/Ct.Ram Chander challenged the orders against him by a statutory revision

petition to the Additional Chief Security Commissioner/RPF which was rejected

by an order dated 30.7.2008.

18. So far as the petitioner Ct.Krishan Kumar is concerned, he merely made a

mercy petition dated 10.7.2010 which was rejected by an order dated 7.01.2011.

Aggrieved by the aforenoticed orders of the disciplinary authority; appellate and

revisional authority H/Ct. Ram Chander has assailed them by way of WP (C)

No.6632/2011 while Ct. Krishan Kumar has challenged the orders against him by

way of WP (C) No.7756/2011. The challenges rest on the sole ground that the

same are based on no evidence.

19. It is trite that the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings is

extremely limited. The court is permitted to examine the record of the disciplinary

proceedings from the perspective only in regard to examine as to whether there

was any violations of statutory provisions or rules and regulations. This court

would also be permitted to examine as to whether any principles of natural justice

would have been violated. In a case where an objection is raised that the findings

of the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate or revisional authority are

based on no evidence, the court would examine the evidence which was led by the

parties before the disciplinary authority. However, the scope of this examination

by the court is narrow inasmuch as the burden of proof which the authorities have

to discharge is limited to establishing preponderance of probabilities and is not

required to discharge the burden of proving the allegations beyond reasonable

doubt as in a criminal trial. Therefore, the burden which the prosecution had to

discharge in the aforenoticed disciplinary proceedings against the petitioners was

only to establish the possibility that the incident as complained could have

occurred and the court would test grievances of the petitioners on the bench mark

of the probability as to whether it could have occurred as stated or not.

20. The evidence led by the respondent shows that the complainant Sh.Kuldeep

Panwar, a train passenger, lodged his complaint at the earliest to the GRP police

setting out his grievances. In support of his complaint, he submitted a valid ticket;

the receipt as well as copy of his MLC. The police registered FIR no.111/2006

based on his allegations. This passenger thereafter appeared in the inquiry

proceedings. He supported his complaint with his oral testimony. The order of the

disciplinary authority reflects that Kuldeep Panwar was apprehensive about his

safety at the hands of the petitioners and the prosecution had to take steps in the

enquiry so as to allay his apprehensions and to enable him to give his statement

without any fear of the petitioners. The evidence of the complainant was recorded

in the disciplinary proceedings on 30th July, 2007. There is no contradiction

between the statement which Sh.Kuldeep Panwar gave to the disciplinary authority

and the complaint which is the basis of FIR no.111/2006. Therefore, so far as

disciplinary proceedings are concerned, there was sufficient material against the

petitioners before the Inquiry Officer to have return the finding of guilty.

21. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners has drawn our attention to the

evidence which was recorded in the disciplinary proceedings of defence witness

no.2 Mr.A.K.Singh who the Train Ticket Examiner on the fateful night on train

No.8237. This witness has in fact corroborated the complainant and has stated in

his evidence that the complainant was having M/E a ticket from Ex.Shahdara to

Saharnpur. Mr.A.K.Singh has further stated that the complainant was charged

Rs.350/- for overriding charges Ex-Saharanpur to Ambala Cantt. And issued EFT

NO.196579 and signature of that passenger on the EFT were taken and he released

him at Amabala Cantt. Railway Station and continued his journey upto Ludhiana.

This witness has therefore corroborated the complainant to the effect that he had

valid ticket upto Saharanpur and was not permitted to disembark from train by the

petitioners.

22. In view of the above discussion, it is not possible to agree with learned

senior counsel for the petitioner that the impugned orders are based on no evidence

at all. The impugned orders are based on evidence on record. The challenges by

the petitioners are devoid of merit. No further point is pressed for determination by

us.

23. These writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.

(GITA MITTAL) JUDGE

(DEEPA SHARMA) JUDGE JULY 24, 2013 rb