Delhi High Court
Madhu Sudan Singh vs Union Of India And Ors. on 18 November, 2015
$~25
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Decided on: 18.11.2015
W.P. (C) 10611/2015
CM APPL.27092/2015
MADHU SUDAN SINGH ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Ajay Kalra with
Mr. Apar Chopra and Ms. Varuna,
Advocates.
versus
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Kailash Golani and Mr. Ankur
Chhibber, Advocates.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA
S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J
% 1. The petitioner, a Constable working in the Central Industrial
Security Force was dismissed from service on 31.07.1995. He was charged
with the misconduct of reporting to the duties assigned to him during the
third shift (9:00 PM to 05:00 AM) on 23.03.1995 in a state of intoxication
and secondly for using intemperate language in a representation furnished
by him on 30.03.1995.
2. The petitioner had earlier approached this Court in
W.P.(C)4213/1997. That writ petition was disposed of on 12.05.1999.
While disposing of the writ proceedings, this Court had found that the
W.P.(C) 10611/2015 Page 1
second charge of using intemperate language was not established. The
Court had then directed as follows: -
"In so far as the findings of the Ist charge are concerned, the
petitioner will prefer a representation within 10 days from the
receipt of the certified copy of this judgment to the Disciplinary
Authority i.e. respondent no.5, the Commandant, and the said
representation may be disposed of on merits by the respondent No.2
within a period of 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the
representation being uninfluenced by the findings recorded earlier.
However, it is not appropriate in the present circumstances to direct
the reinstatement of the petitioner consequent to the setting aside of
the order of dismissal. Accordingly it is directed that the petitioner
be deemed to be placed under suspension with effect from 31st July
1995 and be paid the allowances as admissible under the rules till
the final order by the disciplinary authority on the representation
filed by the petitioner is passed. The petitioner if aggrieved by the
order of the disciplinary authority, will be entitled to ventilate his
grievance in accordance with law."
3. The petitioner's representation against the report of the Enquiry
Officer was considered by the Director General, CISF, the revisional
authority and rejected on 22.11.1999. The petitioner challenged this order
contending that his valuable right to appeal had been deprived by its
consideration by the higher authority, i.e., the revisional authority. This
contention - articulated in a second writ proceedings - i.e., W.P.(C)
7755/2001, was accepted and the order of the revisional authority was
quashed by judgment of this Court dated 23.01.2014.
4. In these circumstances, the petitioner represented to the disciplinary
authority urging various grounds. It was principally contended that taken in
sum, the evidence on record in the form of deposition of witnesses did not
establish that he was drunk when he did report for duty and that the conduct
of enquiry was vitiated because "the Enquiry Officer examined the
W.P.(C) 10611/2015 Page 2
petitioner as witness without obtaining his consent and cross examined him
at length".
5. The records of the enquiry including the depositions of various
witnesses as well as the statement of the petitioner are on the record. So
also is the case with the report of the Enquiry Officer. It is emphasized by
counsel for the petitioner that the witnesses who were made to depose
against him were not unanimous about his inebriation or drunk condition.
In support, learned counsel had relied upon the testimony of PW-3 and
highlighted that this witness merely stated that upon his reporting, the
concerned SI T.K. Mukherjee asked him to be redeployed elsewhere. It was
next submitted that the SI T.K. Mukherjee's testimony in these
circumstances could not be determinative of the petitioner's guilt. Learned
counsel submitted that the petitioner was not subjected to any medical
examination and the mere ipsi dixit of SI T.K. Mukherjee could not have
been the basis to impel the Enquiry Officer to conclude that the charge had
been established. He urged secondly that the nature and line of questions
adopted by the Enquiry Officer was enunciation in the sense that he was
cross examined at length which was utterly unwarranted.
6. This Court has considered the submissions. So far as the petitioner's
complaint with respect to the lack of uniformity in the witnesses' version
goes, it has to be remembered that in disciplinary proceedings, a fact does
not have to be established beyond reasonable doubt. In other words, the
standard of proof required in criminal proceedings is not applicable in
disciplinary proceedings, it may be seen from the fact that even hear say
evidence can be given due credence too. Seeing from this light the fact that
PW-3 was silent in our opinion is not conclusive factor. All that the said
witness stated was the facts noticed by him, i.e., that the petitioner reported
for duty and was asked by SI T.K. Mukherjee to go elsewhere which he
W.P.(C) 10611/2015 Page 3
did. Apparently, PW-3 was at a distance from the conversation and
naturally could not be expected to be privy to it. PW-1 who was near to the
event and narrates as it were states inter alia as follows: -
"After seeing him at that time, it looked as if he was drunk because
his way of talking, walking and movements were not normal,
showing that he was drunk. The smell of liquor was also coming
from the mouth of Constable Madhu Sudan Singh and he came
inside the Control Room and laid down, when he was made to stand
up he was not able to stand and was out of his control. At that time,
head constable, Madhu Sudan Singh was there and Head Constable
Krishanappa and Lance Naik S.C. Seha were trying all their efforts
to control him but he was out of control therefore I sent him to his
barrack Janta Paradise Hotel by Gypsy. I sent information
regarding this to the Company Commander."
SI T.K. Mukherjee further stated during the cross examination in reply to
the petitioner's query as follows: -
Q-2. When I came on duty at 21.00 hours then you checked me only
or you checked other force member also?
Ans. Because at 21.10 hours he came along on duty at place,
therefore I checked him only at that place and at that point of time
his movements were such that a person could guess by having a look
at him that he was consumed lot of quantity of liquor."
7. Having regard to the above categorical statement of SI T.K.
Mukherjee who unequivocally stated that the petitioner was drunk and was
under the influence of alcohol and furthermore that he was even unable to
move leading to his being asked to go to the barracks, there can be no
manner of doubt that the Enquiry Officer correctly found that the first
charge was established.
8. As far as the second contention with respect to the cross examination
of the witnesses is concerned, this Court again is unpersuaded by the
submissions made in that regard. The Enquiry Officer is under an
W.P.(C) 10611/2015 Page 4
obligation under Rule 14 (18) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 to generally
question the charged employee as to the circumstances appearing against
him in the evidence for the purpose of enabling the Government servant to
explain any circumstances appearing in the evidence against him. The
Court has considered the line of questioning adopted by the Enquiry
Officer which is at page nos.75-77 of the paper book. The Court discerns
no reason to agree with the petitioner since the questions posed were of
general nature - it can also be seen that the petitioner himself made
submissions in support of his defence. Consequently, we reject this
submission too.
9. For the above reasons, we find that there is no merit in the writ
petition; the same is accordingly dismissed.
S. RAVINDRA BHAT
(JUDGE)
DEEPA SHARMA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 18, 2015
/vikas/
W.P.(C) 10611/2015 Page 5
