Delhi High Court
Abdul Quadir Khan vs Uoi & Ors. on 27 August, 2015
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 2422/2000
% Date of decision: 27.08.2015
ABDUL QUADIR KHAN ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr.Alamgir, Advocate
versus
UOI & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms.Archana Gaur, Advocate
Mr.S.S.Sejwal, Law officer, CRPF
Mr.B.K.Raut, Pairvi Officer,
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
1. The petitioner challenges an order of dismissal dated 25.07.1998
issued by the disciplinary authority of the respondent, Central Reserve
Police Force (hereinafter referred to as the "CRPF"). This order was
confirmed in appeal on 09.12.1998 and subsequently with the dismissal of
petitioner's revision petition on 12.01.2000.
2. The petitioner had joined the CRPF on 28.08.1993. At the relevant
time in May-June 1997, he was posted in the 134 Battalion at Srinagar. In
relation to an incident which occurred on 30.06.1997, involving his conduct,
a complaint was received from one Naik Pushpender Singh stating that the
petitioner disobeyed the lawful orders of his senior and secondly that on the
same day "he pointed his service rifle fully loaded at his commander
no.810714433 NK Pushpender Singh and threatened to kill him." These
W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 1
charges were denied and one Deputy Commandant Gopi Chand enquired
into the conduct and submitted his report. In terms of the enquiry report-
which was based upon the depositions and statements of various CRPF
personnel, the petitioner was held guilty of both charges. This forms the
basis of the disciplinary authority's order dismissing the petitioner from
service.
3. It is contended on the petitioner's behalf that the plea of guilt was
never unequivocally recorded in this case. Learned counsel for the petitioner
submitted that since Naik Pushpender Singh asked the petitioner to forthwith
obey his command, since he (the petitioner) was not fully dressed, he could
not comply immediately. It was highlighted that the plea of guilt therefore
had to be seen in the context of the circumstances. Learned counsel pointed
to the record, particularly the petitioner's allegation that he never admitted
the guilt but rather stated that " Naik Pushpender Singh came to my room
and said go for making balls of coke. Upon this I said I am coming Sir, after
wearing my dress but he did not leave the room and he started abusing me
and this resulted into quarrel." It was submitted that the petitioner was
never given a proper opportunity to defend himself and instead was made to
sign in the course of the enquiry proceedings even though he was not aware
as to what was recorded. Learned counsel also submitted that other
irregularities occurred in that additional witnesses were examined contrary
to the initial list of witnesses.
4. The CRPF has produced the record. This Court has considered the
same. Three witnesses i.e. Inder Raj Singh, the complainant-Naik
Pushpender Singh and NGI Singh have unequivocally deposed about both
the incidents under charge. About the second incident which appears to be
W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 2
more serious i.e. pointing the rifle at the Commander and threatening to
shoot and kill him, the record in fact even shows the cross-examination of
these witnesses. These proceedings further contained the petitioner's
signatures. These proceedings in fact took place on 18.12.1997. As to the
petitioner's submission that the second incident was never admitted to and
had never occurred, this Court is unpersuaded by the contention. All the
three witnesses clearly stated that petitioner did point his rifle (SLR) at the
Commander and threatened to shoot him. Considering that the petitioner
was deployed in a disturbed area i.e. Kashmir at the relevant time, the
conduct was undoubtedly blameworthy. There could be some room for
doubt as to the first incident i.e. whether in fact the petitioner sought for a
little while to get ready and then comply with the order. However, even if
some liberty would have to be given for his explanation i.e. about a quarrel,
the basis of the second charge which was ultimately true leaves, no doubt
about the veracity of this occurrence.
5. So far as the petitioner's grievance with respect to unfair procedure or
that he was made to sign the papers without being made aware as to what
their contents were is concerned, we note that no such plea was urged in the
appeal. The appeal merely highlights that he was at fault apparently in
respect of the first charge. It nowhere raised a grievance with respect to the
second charge which according to the disciplinary authority has been fully
proved. We take note of the fact that in totality even if PW-7's evidence
were to be ignored (for a moment assuming that being an additional witness,
his testimony should not be taken into account) the fact remains that there
were other witnesses including PW-1. That apart, PW-7 and PW-8 were
fully cross-examined - so much so that PW-7 was even asked about the
W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 3
circumstances under which the rifle was pointed at the Commander by the
petitioner.
6. After carefully considering all the records and submissions of the
petitioner and also taking into account the fact that the record itself speaks of
a previous similar incident of 1995 which was taken into account, and given
that the petitioner had served apparently for four years, we are of the opinion
that no interference on account of failure of natural justice or on account of
disproportionate punishment is called for.
7. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.
DEEPA SHARMA, J.
AUGUST 27, 2015
rb
W.P.(C) 2422/2000 Page 4
