Jharkhand High Court
A Gangadharan vs The Union Of India Through The ... on 25 August, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
(Letters Patent Appellate Jurisdiction)
LPA No. 58 of 2015
A Gangadharan, son of late Karunakaren Azikomath House, resident of
village- Ramanthali, PO Karanthat, PS Payyanur, District Kannur, State
Kerala .... ... Appellant
Versus
1. The Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Home, PO & PS
New Delhi, New Delhi.
2. The Deputy Inspector General, CISF, BCCL, New Complex, Post- Koila
Nagar, PS Saraidhela, District Dhanbad.
3. The Commandant, CISF, BCCL, New Complex, PO Koila Nagar, PS
Saraidhela, District- Dhanbad ..... .... Respondents
-------
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RATNAKER BHENGRA
------
For the Appellant : Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Anil Kumar, ASGI;
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Sinha, CGC;
Ms. Kumari Ranjana Singh, Advocate
------
ORDER
25th August 2022
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar,J.
The appellant who was the writ petitioner has challenged the
order dated 27th November 2014 passed in WP(S) No. 5371 of 2011.
2. By an order dated 9th May 2011 passed by the Commandant,
CISF, Dhanbad the appellant was removed from service. This order of
removal from service was affirmed by the appellate authority vide order
dated 2nd August 2011.
3. The aforesaid orders passed by the departmental authorities were
challenged by the appellant in WP(S) No. 5371 of 2011 which has been
dismissed holding that the misconduct proved against the delinquent
employee pertained to moral turpitude and he himself admitted his guilt
before higher authorities and, therefore, he was rightly removed from the
government service.
4. Mr. Subhash Chandra Prakash, the learned counsel for the
appellant, submits that the departmental inquiry was conducted on the basis
of hearsay evidence and it was mere ipse dixit of the inquiry authority which
was illegally accepted by the departmental authorities to pass the order for
2 LPA 58 of 2015
removal from service. It is submitted that during the departmental inquiry
neither mother of the appellant nor brother-in-law was examined and there is
no evidence that Rs. 1,50,000/- which was transferred in the account of
brother-in-law of the appellant was ill-gotten money.
5. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI, supports the writ Court's
order submitting that findings of fact recorded by the departmental
authorities are not open to challenge in a writ proceeding under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India. The learned ASGI further submits that in a
departmental proceeding the strict rules of evidence are not applied and the
order passed by the departmental authorities can be sustained if there is some
evidence to support the charge.
6. The appellant who was put under suspension vide order dated
28th December 2010 was served a memorandum of charge on the following
allegations:-
"ARTICLE OF CHARGE-1
No.902292389 Const. A. Gangadharan, CISF Unit BCCL Dhanbad
while detailed at BCW Bhojudih for crime & intelligence duty has
managed to deposit disproportionate amount within a short period
from 18.10.2010 to 22.12.2010 in the SBI Account of his brother
-in-law Mr. Rameshan Madhavan bearing A/C No 31465980273 of
SBI Alakod Branch, Distt Kunnur Kerala from SBI BCW
Santhaidih & nearby Branch which exhibited that Const. A
Gangadharan has collected illegal gratification while detailed for
crime duty at BCW Bhojudih. The above act on the part of Const. A
Gangadharan amounts to gross indiscipline, severe misconduct
and unbecoming of a member of the Force. Hence the charge"
7. The appellant submitted his written statement of defence on
29th January 2011 putting forth a defence that while returning from home to
tender his joining at Dhanbad his mother gave Rs.1,50,000/- for purchase of
studio articles for his wife who is a photographer. In the meantime, he
received an information that his daughter became sick and as per wishes of
his mother he transmitted the aforesaid amount in the bank account of his
brother-in-law. The appellant denied charge as stated in the article of charge
dated 24th January 2011 and claimed innocence.
8. In the departmental proceeding, the appellant did not tender any
evidence either oral or documentary and never made any complain about
unfairness in the conduct of departmental inquiry. The Enquiring Officer
submitted the report on 14th April 2011 and, thereafter, second show cause
notice was issued to the appellant to which he submitted his explanation on
3 LPA 58 of 2015
22nd April 2011.
9. The departmental authority concurred with the findings recorded
by the Enquiring Officer and on consideration of the materials on record
passed the order of removal from service on 9 th May 2011 which, as noticed
above, was affirmed by the appellate authority.
10. In a properly constituted departmental inquiry which was
conduced following the rules of natural justice, the findings recorded by the
Enquiring Officer cannot be challenged on mere abstract propositions in law
without furnishing any evidence in that regard, and the Courts would be
reluctant to interfere with such findings.
11. The present is not a case based on no evidence rather the falsity
of defence taken by the appellant would provide a missing link in the chain
of circumstances which would point out towards commission of misconduct
by him. In a departmental proceeding, it is not necessary that the parties must
adduce evidence through eyewitnesses and an inference about misconduct of
the delinquent employee can be drawn from the proved facts.
12. In the above context, we notice that the defence set up by the
delinquent employee at the first instance is not supported by even an iota of
evidence rather the same seems to be a false defence put forth by him. The
appellant says that his mother gave Rs.1,50,000/- collected through sale of
trees, sheep and goats etc. but the name of the persons to whom such articles
were sold are not disclosed. Furthermore, he did not ask his mother to tender
her evidence to corroborate his defence. It is his own case that after he got
information about illness of his daughter he transmitted Rs.1,50,000/- given
to him by his mother in the account of his brother-in-law, but then, from the
bank statement it appears that the aforesaid amount was deposited in the bank
account of his brother-in-law in many installments. The appellant has not
even disclosed the name of the doctor, the place where his daughter was
treated and other informations of like nature.
13. Mr. Anil Kumar, the learned ASGI, has rightly contended that
the charges found proved against the appellant are based on evidence laid
during the departmental inquiry which the appellant could not show by
preponderance of probability incorrect or not probable.
14. In "State of AP v. Chitra Venkata Rao" (1975) 2 SCC 557 the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the writ Court under Article 226 of the
4 LPA 58 of 2015
Constitution of India is not constituted as Court of appeal to sit over the
judgment of the departmental authorities and it is in very exceptional kind of
cases that the Court would interfere with the decision of the departmental
authority where either it is found that (i) the order was passed against the
departmental rules, or (ii) the order was passed in breach of rules of natural
justice, or (iii) there was no evidence to connect the delinquent government
employee with the alleged misconduct.
15. The learned Single Judge has referred to the judgments in "B.C.
Chaturvedi v. Union of India" (1995)6 SCC 749; Indian Oil Corporation
Ltd. and another v. Ashok Kumar Arora (1997) 3 SCC 72, and; "State of UP
and others v. Raj Kishore Yadav and another" (2006)5 SCC 673 to not to
interfere in the matter being cautious of the limitations of the High Court to
interfere with the administrative actions of the said authority.
16. At the first instance, the statement of the appellant admitting his
guilt was recorded in the Orderly Room Register on 29 th December 2010. He
has also submitted his written apology seeking pardon for the misconduct.
The stand taken by him that depositing money in the bank account of his
brother-in-law is not a misconduct must be rejected because he failed to
explain possession of Rs. 1,50,000/- which he transferred in installments to
his brother-in-law. This is a relevant fact that these transactions were made
from Dhanbad where he was posted. The test applied in a departmental
proceeding is preponderance of probability which is a different test as applied
in a criminal case. On the above yardstick, the departmental authorities
rightly held the appellant guilty of committing misconduct of collecting
illegal gratification money while detailed on crime duty.
17. Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances in the
case, we find no merit in this Letters Patent Appeal and, accordingly, LPA
No. 58 of 2015 is dismissed.
(Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)
(Ratnaker Bhengra, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi
Dated: 25th August, 2022
SB/Nibha-NAFR
