Dhanpat Singh (Since Deceased) ... vs Uoi & Ors.
2014 Latest Caselaw 10 Del

$~R-1

*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


%                                       Date of Decision: January 02, 2014


+                           W.P.(C) 3316/1998
        DHANPAT SINGH (SINCE DECEASED)
        THRU LEGAL HEIRS                          ..... Petitioners
                Represented by: Col.S.R.Kalkal, Advocate

                                        versus

        UOI & ORS.                                      ..... Respondents
                  Represented by:       Dr.Ashwani Bhardwaj, Advocate for
                                        R-1

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH

PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)

1. The statement of articles of charges framed against the petitioner read as under:-

"ARTICLE-I

That No.880977859 Ct.Dhanpat Singh while functioning as a Ct. in 97th Bn. CRPF w.e.f. 30/4/88, committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF Act, 1949, in that he got himself fraudulently enlisted as a Constable (GD) in 97 th Bn. CRPF on 30/4/88 on the basis of educational/other certificates of his brother named Shri Dhanpat Singh.

ARTICLE-II

That the said No.880977859 Ct.Dhanpat Singh, while functioning as a Ct. in 97th Bn. CRPF w.e.f. 30/4/88, continued to commit an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force under section 11(1) of CRPF, Act, 1949, in that he having got himself fraudulently enlisted in CRPF as a Ct. on the basis of educational certificates of his brother named Sh Dhanpat Singh, did not disclose his true identity to this department till a complaint dated 13/3/91 was received from a civilian namely Sh.Babu Lal, s/o Shri Maidhan, R/o Village Unhani, District Mahendergarh (Haryana).

ARTICLE-III

That the said No.880977859 Ct.Dhanpat Singh, while functioning as a Ct. in 97th Bn. CRPF w.e.f. 30/4/88, committed an act of misconduct in his capacity as a member of the force u/s.11(1) of CRPF, Act, 1949, in that he got himself enlisted in the CRPF as Ct. w.e.f. 30/4/88 against the quota fixed for the domicile of Delhi by producing false domicile certificate, whereas, he actually belonged to Haryana State."

2. The Inquiry Officer has held that whereas Article 1 of the charge was fully proved, Article 2 was partially proved and Article 3 was not proved.

3. The findings are self-contradictory for the reason pertaining to Article 3, the Inquiry Officer has treated the petitioner to be Dhanpat Singh and that the domicile certificate No.1708 dated May 05, 1988 was correct and authentic. Now, for the said domicile certificate to be correct and authentic the petitioner would be required to be residing in Delhi for 3 preceding years, which would mean that since March, 1985 the petitioner was residing in Delhi and this would mean that the petitioner would have obtained his matriculation degree in the year 1985.

4. As per the statement of imputations, the allegations against the petitioner was that his real name was Sumer Singh. Dhanpat Singh was his elder brother. Using the matriculation certificate issued in March, 1985 in the name of Dhanpat (the stated elder brother of the petitioner) he wrongly used the domicile certificate issued in the name of his brother in addition to using the school certificates of his elder brother and thus obtained employment by fraud. Now, if Article 3 of the charge was not proved, we wonder as to how come Article 1 was. Further, if Article 1 of the charge was proved, we wonder as to how could Article 2 be partially proved.

5. That apart, it is a case of no evidence.

6. Record of Inquiry which has been produced before us would reveal that no witness has deposed to the fact that petitioner's real name is Sumer Singh. Counsel for the respondent concedes that testimony of only PW-1 is relevant. PW-1 has proved documents Exhibited A to K. He has not deposed to any fact based on his personal knowledge. Exhibits A to K are as under:-

(i) Ex.A : A complaint mark to the Commandant of the Battalion where petitioner was attached by the DIG, CRPF, New Delhi.

(ii) Ex.B : Photocopy of the complaint in question addressed by one Babu Lal alleging that petitioner's name is Sumer Singh and his elder brother was named Dhanpat and that whereas Dhanpat obtained matriculation degree in the year 1985, petitioner obtained the matriculation degree in the year 1987 and thus could not be residing in Delhi, a requirement of domicile, for 3 years as of March, 1988.

(iii) Ex.C : A letter written by the Commandant of the Battalion to which the petitioner was attached to the District Magistrate Mahender Garh to

submit a report whether petitioner was named Dhanpat or Sumer Singh.

(iv) Ex.D : A letter dated January 14, 1992 written by the Assistant Secretary (Examination) Education Department, Government of Haryana informing that in view of the relevant record being destroyed they could not supply any information whether the photographs sent to them, as per their record was that of Sumer Singh or Dhanpat.

(N.B. The letter would reveal that petitioner's photograph was sent to the Board to check the Board Record pertaining to a matriculation certificate No.841603 dated March, 1985 in the name of Dhanpat as also a matriculation certificate No.799761 dated March, 1987 in the name of Sumer Singh with reference to the application form submitted by the candidate to be issued the roll number on which application form the photograph of the applicant was affixed.)

(v) Ex.E : A letter addressed by the Principal of Government Senior Secondary School informing that the record was not available.

(vi) Ex.F : A confessional statement written by the petitioner admitting that he gave his elder brother's papers when he took admission.

(vii) Ex.G : A retraction of the confessional statement.

(viii) Ex.H : A report sent by the District Magistrate informing that with reference to the record of the Education Department no opinion could be furnished. But recording that the tattoo on petitioner's forearm was suggestive of the fact that the letters 'SS' have been interpolated, by trying to make them look as if they were two creepers (bale ka nishan). With reference to the record of the Education Department being destroyed, he opined that the petitioner would have got so done. (N.B. Though not recorded, the underlying current of the reasoning

pertaining to the Board Record being destroyed is that the petitioner was the beneficiary)

(ix) Ex.I : A letter written by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Naurnol to the Commandant informing that the district authorities were still investigating the matter.

(x) Ex.J : The domicile certificate dated March 05, 1988 issued in teh name of Dhanpat Singh.

7. The Inquiry Officer has simply lapped up the report Ex.H.

8. It is apparent that a personal opinion of some officer that the letters 'SS', which presumably would mean Sumer Singh, tattooed on the forearm of the petitioner have been interpolated later on to give them an appearance of two creepers. Further, the statutory period being over during which application forms have to be retained, the action of the Education Board to destroy the same has been used as an inference against the petitioner on the reasoning that the petitioner would be the beneficiary of the destruction.

9. Looked at from any angle, it is a case of no evidence even on the low standard of proof of facts at a domestic inquiry.

10. We note that the petitioner died during the pendency of the writ petition and this would mean that the petitioner would have been in service but for the wrong order passed till when he expired on February 11, 2011.

11. Disposing of the writ petition we quash the order dated May 12, 1993 terminating services of the petitioner i.e. dismissing him from service. We quash the order rejecting the appeal on March 24, 1994 as also the order rejecting the revision passed on May 17, 1996.

12. From the date he was dismissed from service till he died we declare that the petitioner would be entitled to 50% wages i.e. 50% of the salary and

allowances which he would have drawn had he been in service and thereafter we direct family pension to be paid to his wife. The 50% arrears of salary and full arrears of pension shall be disbursed to petitioner's wife and future family pension shall be paid to her each month.

13. No costs.

(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG) JUDGE

(JAYANT NATH) JUDGE JANUARY 02, 2014 mamta