Delhi High Court
Sahab Singh vs Director General & Ors. on 29 July, 2015
$~5
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on : 29.07.2015
+ W.P.(C) 6411/2012
SAHAB SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr D.K. Thakur, Adv.
versus
DIRECTOR GENERAL & ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Mr Rajan Sabharwal, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT)
%
1. The petitioner challenges the order dismissing him from service on the
ground of misconduct. He was issued a charge-sheet dated 12.01.2011 under Rule
153 of Railway Protection Force (RPF) Rules.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was recruited in the RPF as
a Constable on 01.08.1994. He was posted at Shahdara Post, Delhi in 2006. On
the basis of the allegations of commission of offence punishable under Sections
363 and 366 IPC, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged on 13.03.2007 at
Bahari Police Station, District Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh. Apparently, the
charge of committing the offence of rape, punishable under Section 376 was also
included in the FIR. The petitioner, his brother and his father were named as the
accused in the said FIR. The petitioner's brother was the alleged offender,
whereas the allegation against the petitioner was that he assisted and abetted him
W.P.(C) 6411/2012 Page 1
in the crime. The Sessions Court issued summons some time in 2010 to the
petitioner. The charges were framed on 08.08.2010 against the petitioner. Due to
his non-appearance, non-bailable warrants were issued and he was taken into
judicial custody on 29.11.2010. He was, however, subsequently, released on bail
on 01.01.2011. In these circumstances, respondent/authority served a charge-sheet
to the petitioner on 12.01.2011, alleging that he had concealed the facts pertaining
to his involvement in the criminal case and had also not intimated his arrest and
detention which was required of him under the CCS Conduct Rules. The
Disciplinary Authority, which considered the petitioner's defence, took note of the
relevant facts as well as the material on record. The petitioner's principal defence
was that he asked his relatives to intimate the respondent-RPF about his detention,
but had not informed so in writing.
3. However, apparently there was no substantial evidence as to why he omitted
to mention the accusation of his having been accused of committing of a crime at
the earliest opportunity after he was named as an accused in the FIR. On the basis
of the Inquiry Officer's report, the petitioner was served with an order, dismissing
him from service on 24.06.2011. He preferred an appeal on 12.04.2012; this too
was met with no success and was consequently rejected. He subsequently,
preferred a revision petition on 05.12.2011, questioning the sentence of dismissal.
The revisional authority declined to interfere with the punishment.
4. The petitioner submits that the order of dismissal about his detention is
unwarranted. It is also stated that subsequently by judgment and order dated
16.11.2013, he was acquitted of the charges as were the other accused. It is
submitted that having rendered 18 years of service, the punishment of dismissal is,
in the circumstances, disproportionate and excessive. Counsel for the respondent
relies upon the averments in the counter-affidavit and states that at no stage did
W.P.(C) 6411/2012 Page 2
the petitioner intimate the authorities about the pendency of the criminal case
against him. He was aware of the fact that not only was he an accused, but that
also he may subsequently face charges. He concealed these circumstances.
Furthermore, he also did not communicate the fact that he was kept in judicial
custody.
5. This Court has considered the submissions. The petitioner has been asked to
answer two charges--the first of which is his omission to disclose the material
facts of his involvement in the criminal case. This is a material circumstance
because in such an event, the employer has the choice of either initiating
disciplinary proceedings or placing the employee under suspension to await the
decision of the criminal offence. It is not his case that he was unaware of the
criminal proceedings; he was arrayed as an accused in the FIR against serious for
the alleged commission of offences, punishable under Section 363 and 366.
Ultimately, he was also charged of the said offences by the Sessions Court. The
second charge is that he did not intimate--at the first available opportunity about
his detention. No doubt, at that point of time the petitioner was detained and he
could not have intimated the authorities, but having regard to the fact that he was
under prolonged judicial custody for nearly a month, he ought to have at least
intimated in writing about these circumstances.
6. In order to satisfy ourselves, we looked into the judgment of the Criminal
Court to consider whether the nature of the charges were such that an entirely
false case had been made out against the petitioner. Apparently, the Sessions
Court, which tried the petitioner and his other family members was persuaded by
certain technical considerations such as lack of map, etc.. We do not wish to
comment on the correctness of the judgment because that is not the subject matter
of the present petition. Our consideration is only to see whether having regard to
W.P.(C) 6411/2012 Page 3
the nature of the accusation and the materials presented before the Sessions Court,
the petitioner was falsely implicated in the circumstances. Having considered the
materials at our disposal, we are satisfied that the charges framed against him
were not the result of a situation, whereby the petitioner was accused with the
intention of falsely implicating him.
7. Having regard to the above discussion, we are of the opinion that this is not
an appropriate case to grant any relief under Article 226 of the Constitution.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
V.K. SHALI
(JUDGE)
JULY 29, 2015
BG
W.P.(C) 6411/2012 Page 4
