Bikram Pal vs Union Of India And Others
2024 Latest Caselaw 8373 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Bikram Pal vs Union Of India And Others on 22 April, 2024

                                Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588




CWP-26167-2023                   1                   2024:PHHC:053588

114
      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                        CWP-26167-2023
                                        Date of Decision:22.04.2024

BIKRAM PAL                                                ......... Petitioner

                                     Versus

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                                 ..... Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAGMOHAN BANSAL

Present:     Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate and
             Mr. Jaskaran Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             Mr. Shubham Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel
             for the respondents-UOI.

                     ****

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles

226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of:

(i) Order dated 07.01.2023 (Annexure P-2) passed by

respondent No.3 whereby he was dismissed from service.

(ii) Order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-3) whereby

respondent No.4 has dismissed his appeal.

(iii) Order dated 13.07.2023 (Annexure P-4) whereby

respondent No.5 has dismissed his revision petition.

2. The petitioner on 15.04.2009 joined CRPF as Constable.

During 2017-2018, he was posted at 13th Battalion, Chandigarh, Sector

43, Chandigarh. On account of impersonation, he was awarded

punishment of 25 days sentence. It is apt to mention here that he had

impersonated himself as Rakesh Kumar, Additional Director General of

1 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588

CWP-26167-2023 2 2024:PHHC:053588

Police, Punjab.

3. Joint Secretary to Prime Minister of India vide

communication dated 21.04.2022 informed Secretary, Ministry of Home

Affairs that a person using Mobile Number 7009808342 has called Shri

Manoj Meena, IPS posted at Chandigarh and asked him to transfer a

police Constable. The said letter moved from one office to another which

culminated in initiation of departmental enquiry against the petitioner.

The respondent examined various witnesses and came to a conclusion

that petitioner has repeated the same offence i.e. impersonation which he

had committed on earlier occasions. On the basis of report of Enquiry

Officer, he came to be removed from service by order dated 07.01.2023

(Annexure P-2). Feeling aggrieved from order of Disciplinary Authority,

he preferred an appeal before Appellate Authority which came to be

dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2023 (Annexure P-3). He further

preferred revision which also came to be dismissed vide order dated

13.07.2023 (Annexure P-4).

4. Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Advocate submits that petitioner was

not afforded proper opportunity to put forth his stand. The person to

whom alleged call was made was never examined. The Joint Secretary,

Prime Minister of India was not examined. The Telecom Company was

not asked to supply call details as well as location of the mobile phone

caller, thus, the entire proceedings were mere eye wash and he has been

punished in haste.

5. Mr. Shubham Thakur, Central Govt. Counsel submits that

respondent has followed proper procedure. The Enquiry Officer

examined different witnesses who categorically disclosed not only

2 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588

CWP-26167-2023 3 2024:PHHC:053588

previous conduct of the petitioner but also his alleged conduct. He did not

cross-examine witnesses, meaning thereby, he accepted their deposition.

The respondent is a disciplined force and petitioner by impersonating has

caused loss of reputation to it. His conduct cannot be visited with lenient

punishment. He does not deserve to be retained in the force.

6. I have heard arguments of both sides and scrutinized record

with their able assistance.

7. Concededly, the petitioner was working with respondent

which is an armed and disciplined force. Every member of the force is

bound to maintain high standards of discipline which are foundation of

every force. The petitioner in his statement has admitted use of mobile

number in question. The matter started from the office of Prime Minister

of India. The allegations were enquired by higher officers and during the

course of enquiry many witnesses were examined. The petitioner did not

ask even a single question from the witnesses, though he was granted

opportunity to cross-examine them. He preferred appeal as well as

revision before higher authorities who had examined his each and every

submission. All the authorities have found that petitioner is a habitual

offender. Despite being awarded punishment of 25 days sentence on the

earlier occasion, he did not mend his behavior. Every time, he posed

himself as senior officer like Special General of Police, CRPF, ADGP,

Punjab etc.

8. It is settled proposition of law that scope of interference at

High Court level against departmental proceedings is very limited. High

Court is not supposed to re-appreciate evidence led during the course of

departmental enquiry. High Court while exercising its jurisdiction under

3 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588

CWP-26167-2023 4 2024:PHHC:053588

Article 226 of the Constitution of India can examine whether there is

violation of any prescribed procedure or there was mala fide on the part

of authorities or the official has been victimized.

A two-judge Bench of Supreme Court in Union of India

and others vs. Subrata Nath, 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 998 while adverting

with scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

in disciplinary proceedings has held that departmental authorities are fact

finding authorities. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable

during the departmental enquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the

discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee

keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. The Hon'ble Supreme

Court has considered its judicial precedents including a two-judge Bench

judgment in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran. The

relevant extracts of the judgment read as:

"19. Laying down the broad parameters within which the High Court ought to exercise its powers under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India and matters relating to disciplinary proceedings, a two Judge Bench of this Court in Union of India and Others v. P. Gunasekaran held thus:

"12. Despite the well-settled position, it is painfully disturbing to note that the High Court has acted as an appellate authority in the disciplinary proceedings, reappreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge I was accepted by the disciplinary authority and was also endorsed by the Central Administrative Tribunal. In disciplinary proceedings, the High Court is not and cannot act as a second court of first appeal. The High Court, in exercise of its powers under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into

4 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588

CWP-26167-2023 5 2024:PHHC:053588

reappreciation of the evidence. The High Court can only see whether:

(a) the enquiry is held by a competent authority;

(b) the enquiry is held according to the procedure prescribed in that behalf;

(c) there is violation of the principles of natural justice in conducting the proceedings;

(d) the authorities have disabled themselves from reaching a fair conclusion by some considerations extraneous to the evidence and merits of the case;

(e) the authorities have allowed themselves to be influenced by irrelevant or extraneous considerations;

(f) the conclusion, on the very face of it, is so wholly arbitrary and capricious that no reasonable person could ever have arrived at such conclusion;

(g) the disciplinary authority had erroneously failed to admit the admissible and material evidence;

(h) the disciplinary authority had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which influenced the finding;

(i) the finding of fact is based on no evidence.

13. Under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not:

(i) reappreciate the evidence;

(ii) interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordance with law; (iii) go into the adequacy of the evidence;

(iv) go into the reliability of the evidence;

(v) interfere, if there be some legal evidence on which findings can be based.

5 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588

CWP-26167-2023 6 2024:PHHC:053588

(vi) correct the error of fact however grave it may appear to be;

(vii) go into the proportionality of punishment unless it shocks its conscience."

X X X X

22. To sum up the legal position, being fact finding authorities, both the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority are vested with the exclusive power to examine the evidence forming part of the inquiry report. On finding the evidence to be adequate and reliable during the departmental inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority has the discretion to impose appropriate punishment on the delinquent employee keeping in mind the gravity of the misconduct. However, in exercise of powers of judicial review, the High Court or for that matter, the Tribunal cannot ordinarily reappreciate the evidence to arrive at its own conclusion in respect of the penalty imposed unless and until the punishment imposed is so disproportionate to the offence that it would shock the conscience of the High Court/Tribunal or is found to be flawed for other reasons, as enumerated in P. Gunasekaran (supra). If the punishment imposed on the delinquent employee is such that shocks the conscience of the High Court or the Tribunal, then the Disciplinary/Appellate Authority may be called upon to re- consider the penalty imposed. Only in exceptional circumstances, which need to be mentioned, should the High Court/Tribunal decide to impose appropriate punishment by itself, on offering cogent reasons therefor."

9. In the case in hand, this Court finds that petitioner in 2018

was subjected to sentence of 25 days on account of impersonation. The

higher officers of CRPF during enquiry found that he on other occasions

as well, posed himself as Additional Director General of Police or Special

General of Police, CRPF. He was subjected to impugned punishment on

6 of 7

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:053588

CWP-26167-2023 7 2024:PHHC:053588

account of posing himself as Joint Secretary, Prime Ministry of India.

The act and conduct of the petitioner does not warrant leniency. There is

no illegality in the impugned order. The respondent has followed due

procedure and petitioner was granted reasonable opportunity to put forth

his stand. He was extended opportunity to cross-examine witnesses,

however, he did not ask even a single question from witnesses which

tantamount to his consent to alleged offence.

10. In the wake of above discussion and findings, the present

petition deserves to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.

                                               ( JAGMOHAN BANSAL )
                                                      JUDGE
22.04.2024
Ali
                   Whether speaking/reasoned    Yes/No

                      Whether Reportable        Yes/No




                                7 of 7