Delhi High Court
A.S. Negi vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr on 19 May, 2016
$~8
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of decision: 19th May, 2016
+ W.P.(C) 1079/2015, CM No.1923/2015
A.S. NEGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajesh Katyal, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Manika Tripathy Pandey, Adv.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI
SANJIV KHANNA, J. (ORAL)
1. Mr. A.A. Negi by this writ petition impugns order dated 2 nd
July, 2014 passed by the Principal Bench of the Central
Administrative Tribunal, New Delhi whereby his OA no.2277/2012
has been dismissed.
2. The petitioner was dismissed from service vide order dated
27.12.2010 passed by the Disciplinary Authority after an enquiry
under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules, 1965, on the
following article of charge:-
"That Shri A.S.Negi, UDC, while working in the office
of SDM (E), DEO (South) on 09.07.2007 at 3.00 PM
has indulged in an act unbecoming of a public servant
in as much as he was found entertaining an outsider
woman namely Vimal Ikka and doing immoral act
with her in the Store Room of the department which
was locked from outside located at Distt. South, MB
Road, Saket, New Delhi. A team of officers namely
Shri Lallan Singh, SDM (Defence colony/HQ), Distt.
South and Shri Azad Singh, Supdt. (E) Distt. South
under the overall supervision of DEO (Sought), Delhi,
caught the official red handed. The said immoral act
was done by the official in the Store Room and Shri
Deep Chand, Peon, working in diverted capacity from
the Education Department who locked the store room
from outside."
3. The order of dismissal was affirmed by the Revisionary
Authority vide order dated 3.4.2012.
4. The aforesaid orders of the Disciplinary Authority and
Revisionary Authority were challenged by the O.A.No. 2277/2012
before the Tribunal.
5. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal refers to the
contentions including the submission that it was a case of no evidence
and Manoj Kumar, Store Keeper and Deep Chand, Peon were
exonerated in the disciplinary proceedings. The Tribunal,
exhaustively examined the evidence on record pursuant to which the
Enquiry Officer had held that the charges against the petitioner stand
fully proved. The contention that it was a case of no evidence, or
exoneration of Manoj Kumar and Deep Chand, merited absolving the
petitioner was rejected.
6. Challenging the aforesaid findings of fact before us, petitioner
has submitted that the prosecution witness Lallan Singh - PW-2, Sub
Divisional Magistrate had not supported the prosecution's case. He
also submits that there were contradictions in the statements by
Rajesh Prashad- PW-1, Lallan Singh - PW-2 and Azad Singh - PW-
3.
7. We have considered the said contention, but they are devoid of
substance for several reasons. The Enquiry Officer has dealt with,
examined and evaluated the evidence led by the Presenting Officer.
He has referred to the statement of Azad Singh who had affirmed
Ex.PW-1/A, a letter written by the petitioner on 9th July, 2007, i.e. the
date of the occurrence to the following effect:-
"I am to submit that a lady named Smt. Ikka,
well known to me from the last five years, came to me
with her some problems.
Sir ..... she was my old friend, I asked her to
wait for me in the Store of the office. At about I also
entered in the store and asked Sh. Deep Chand, Peon
to lock the door from outside as I had to do some
urgent work.
Sir I loved her for about half an hour. In the
mean-time some-one knocked at the door, then we
aparted.
Sir, I apologize from the core of my heart for
my this action in the office premises and request in
your kind honour to forgive me as this is my first
mistake in 31 years of my Govt. Service. During the
course of opening the door, worthy DEO(s)
SDM(O/C), Supdt. (O) & C.T.(D/C office) were
present."
8. Azad Singh had also stated that the said letter was written
without any pressure. He was exhaustively cross-examined but
affirmed his statement and denied the fact that earlier another
statement was made by the petitioner or the said statement was torn.
Lallan Singh affirmed that the letter in question was written in his
presence. He had accepted that on opening the door, the petitioner
was found with the said person inside the room. However, the
witness did somewhat oscillated, when he expressed ignorance about
the person knocking on the door of the room. The third witness
Rakesh Prashad had stated that he was informed by Azad Singh on his
mobile phone that the petitioner, officer-in-charge was inside the
locked room. On looking through the window pane, the petitioner was
found with another person. Thereafter, the lock was opened in his
presence. He had also sent a note to the Chief Electoral Officer
giving details of the occurrence on 9th July, 2007. This is not a case of
no evidence, pervert or absurd finding of fact, or the conclusion being
faulty on the precept that no reasonable person on the evidence could
have reached the said finding. When we exercise power of judicial
review, the High Court does act as an appellate forum and re-
appreciate evidence.
9. The petitioner had led defence evidence and had produced one
Prithvi Singh who had claimed that the person found with the
petitioner was his wife. He professed that his family was friendly and
they had close relations with the petitioner. His wife had gone to the
office of the petitioner as there was a problem in water supply and to
request for plumber services. This version has been dealt with and
examined in the Enquiry Report. On being questioned, Prithvi Singh
had accepted that no valid marriage has taken place between him and
his "wife" and that they had been living together for four years. He
admitted that his written statement was prepared by his 'vakil' (an
advocate). The defence version accepts, the presence of the other
person in the office on 9th July, 2007 and the finding of the Enquiry
Officer was that the door was closed and the petitioner and the other
person were inside the locked room.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was a
violation of Rule 14(18) of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules,
1965 as the Enquiry Officer had not examined the petitioner. To
examine the contention, we have gone through the Enquiry Report.
This contention, in the facts of the present case should not be
accepted. The Disciplinary Authority had appointed Enquiry Officer
by order dated 20th December, 2007. The prosecution evidence was
produced and thereafter the petitioner led defence evidence. The
Enquiry Report mentions and refers to the written submissions by the
petitioner. Under the sub-heading 'arguments' the Enquiry Report
records that the Presenting Officer had submitted a copy of the
evidence and material to each of the charged officers, including the
petitioner, who were asked to give their written brief. The Enquiry
Report takes into consideration the written briefs submitted by the
petitioner in response to the evidence adduced and relied by the
Presenting Officer. The petitioner claimed that he was sitting in a
closed/locked room and discussing with the other person,
personal/domestic problems and private matter. He had, therefore, not
conducted any act of moral turpitude. The petitioner had countered
the evidence/material in the form of his letter Ex. PW-1/A as recorded
under coercion by the Sub Divisional Magistrate on the instructions of
District Election Officer. Thus, the petitioner was bestowed and given
adequate and fair opportunity to rebut and answer the evidence and
material relied against him. Prejudice and any injustice is not shown
or elucidated. Except for placing reliance on the Rule, no attempt is
made to bring out a fact or an issue not examined and considered in
the Enquiry Report.
11. In these circumstances, we feel that full opportunity was given
to the petitioner to meet the allegations and in fact there has been full
compliance of principles of natural justice including the requirement
as stipulated in Rule 14(18) of the Central Civil Service (CCA) Rules,
1965. Therefore, the judgments relied upon by the petitioner in the
case of K.K.S.Sirohi & Anr. vs. Union of India & Ors.,
WP(C)3510/2013 decided on 3rd July, 2013 and Ministry of Finance
vs. S.B. Ramesh, AIR 1998 (3)SC 227 are not applicable.
12. In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any merit in the present
writ petition and the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.
SANJIV KHANNA, J
NAJMI WAZIRI, J
MAY 19, 2016/ak
