Delhi High Court
Union Of India & Ors. vs Vijender Singh on 14 May, 2013
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: May 14, 2013
+ W.P.(C) 3947/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ..... Petitioners
Represented by: Mr.Baldev Malik, Advocate with
Mr.Arjun Malik, Advocate
versus
VIJENDER SINGH ..... Respondent
Represented by: Mr.Malaya Chand, Advocate with
Mr.S.P.Mitra, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. With respect to a charge of lack of supervision, penalty
imposed upon the respondent vide order dated December 28, 2010 has been
quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal as per the impugned
decision dated December 02, 2011.
2. Rising to the rank of Assistant Director, (Chemistry) and
working at the Regional Pesticides Testing Laboratory (RPTL), Chandigarh,
respondent Vijender Singh, was issued a charge-sheet for a major penalty
proceedings alleging lack of supervision by him. It was alleged that 35
pesticides samples certified by the Laboratory, on re-analysis at the Central
Insecticides Laboratory (CIL), evidenced 51% variation.
3. The defence of the respondent was that the Scientists who had
actually conducted the test were not proceeded against for any disciplinary
action and as regards he, he had a mere supervisory role. He highlighted
that he was not to test samples of pesticides himself. He also questioned the
report of CIL by highlighting that three mother samples had to be tested and
not one; for the reason rate of errors had to be reduced. He also highlighted
that testing samples after six to eight months was useless.
4. Since the disciplinary authority had overlooked the same, vide
impugned decision dated December 02, 2011, the penalty imposed has been
quashed by the Central Administrative Tribunal.
5. We have repeatedly asked learned counsel for the petitioner as
to what evidence was led at the inquiry with respect to the duties assigned to
the respondent. Learned counsel fairly concedes that none were proved.
6. Now, with respect to the charge of lack of supervision, least
what is expected to be proved at an inquiry is the list of duties and
responsibilities attached to the post. Whether the respondent was obliged to
pick up samples at random after test reports were submitted by Scientists
working under him to check whether the Scientists were performing their
duties satisfactorily could only be ascertained if duties and responsibilities of
the post held by the respondent were established.
7. We have asked learned counsel for the petitioner that in what
manner the respondent can be held responsible for wrong sample reports
prepared, if at all, by junior Scientists? Counsel has no answer.
8. What about the stand taken by the respondent that three mother
samples, and not one, required to be tested as per standard procedures and
since CIL conducted the test only on one sample, report prepared by CIL
had to be ignored? Learned counsel for the petitioner has no answer.
9. Suffice would it be to state that on the issue of expert
knowledge, the Fry's Test tells us that opinion of an expert has to be tested
with reference to not only the science and its principles accepted by
Scientists in the area of specialised knowledge, but additionally if there is a
known rate of error to occur, the opinion must show that all precautions to
minimise the known rate of error have been taken. As we all understand,
analysis of samples is by dividing the sample into two more parts and
subjecting each part to a scientific analysis, for the reason, Scientists agree
that when chemicals are analysed there may be the possibility of an error
taking place. But, where two samples are subjected to two analyses and the
result obtained is the same, it gives a re-assurance that right conclusions
have been arrived at.
10. We dismiss the writ petition but without any order as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(V.KAMESWAR RAO)
JUDGE
MAY14, 2013
skb
