AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.N.Terdal, J
We have heard Mr.Sachin Chauhan counsel for applicant and Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandita, counsel for respondents, perused the pleadings and all the documents produced by both the parties.
In this OA, the applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"(i). To quash and set aside the order dated 03.05.2013 whereby the major punishment i.e. punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently is imposed upon the applicant and order dated 20.01.2014 whereby the statutory appeal of the applicant has been rejected and to further direct the respondents that forfeited year of service be restored as it was never forfeited with all consequential benefits including seniority & promotion and pay & allowances.
(ii). To quash and set aside the finding of E.O
(iii). To quash and set aside the order of initiation of D.E.
(iv). To remove the name of the applicant from secret list from the date of inception. Or/any
(v) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant.
The relevant facts of the case are that on the allegation that the applicant alongwith three others when posted on vehicle checking duty they were taking money from the bike riders in the name of vehicle checking and that the applicant assisted his head constable in taking money by threatening the bike rider to impound his vehicle, a summary of allegation was issued to the applicant. The said summary of allegation is extracted below:-
"It is alleged against SI Anil Bilung No. D-4348 (PIS No. 16080252), HC Anil Kumar No. 490/DD(PIS No. 28961381), Ct.Charan Singh No. 1264/OD (PIS No. 28071969) and Ct. Naveen Kumar No. 1562/OD (PIS No. 28040232) that while posted at Police Station Sultan Puri, Outer Distt. Delhi on 06.12.2010 (10AM to 2.00PM) during the vehicle checking duty at Picket AB Extension near the drain bridge connection Sultanpuri and Mangolpuri, they were caught in the video CD taking the money from a bike rider in the name of Vehicle checking during a sting operation conducted by one Satish Kumar R/o A-71, Shastri Nagar, Delhi Senior correspondent of Satya Parkash Times (Hindi News Paper). HC Anil Kumar accepted money from the bike rider whereas Ct. Charan Singh assisted in the act of taking money by threatening the bike rider to impound his bike, SI Anil Bilung helped in the act of taking money by shown indifference to the request of the bike rider to let him go and Ct.Naveen Kumar was also involved in the act by writing down vehicle numbers during the checking at the picket. The above act on the part of SI Anil Bilung No. D-4348 (PIS No. 16080252), HC Anil Kumar No. 490/DD(PIS No. 28961381), Ct.Charan Singh No. 1264/OD (PIS No. 28071969) and Ct. Naveen Kumar No. 1562/OD (PIS No. 28040232) amount to grave misconduct which renders them liable to be dealt with departmentally under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980."
Alongwith the summary of allegation, list of documents and list of witnesses were served on the applicant. Similarly on all the other three police officials also similar summary of allegation were served and as all the four police officials did not admit the charge, including the applicant, an Inquiry Officer was appointed for conducting joint departmental enquiry against all of them. The Inquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice and all the relevant rules governing the conduct of departmental enquiry examined PW1 to PW5 and DW1 and taken on record the joint defence statement submitted by all the delinquent police officials involved and discussed and analyzed the evidence and came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the applicant was proved vide his inquiry report dated 7.11.2012. The inquiry report was furnished to the applicant. The applicant filed representation against the inquiry report. The disciplinary authority took into consideration the deposition of all the witnesses and examined the inquiry report, heard the applicant in orderly room and took into consideration the grounds raised by the applicant in his representation against the inquiry report and imposed a penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service permanently on the applicant vide order dated 03.05.2013. The applicant filed an appeal. The appellate authority once again considered the entire evidence brought on record in the departmental enquiry, gone through the inquiry report and the grounds raised by the applicant point wise in his appeal and heard the applicant in orderly room on 18.12.2013 and came to the conclusion that the evidence available on record is very weak evidence and on that basis he reduced the penalty and imposed penalty of forfeiture of one year approved service temporarily on the applicant vide order dated 20.01.2014.
The counsel for the applicant vehemently and strenuously contended that it is a case of no evidence. That though the findings of the inquiry officer is mainly based on the sting operation and the compact disk (CD) prepared about the sting operation and that though the CD was enclosed in DE file but was not got exhibited or authenticated by witness as recorded by the appellate authority and that he further submitted that the sting operation was motivated as submitted by the applicant before the appellate authority and that the allegations were not specific and on these grounds he submitted that the relief prayed for by him require to be allowed. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant has relied upon the following order/judgment of the Tribunal and Hon'ble Supreme Court:
(1) ASI Pale Ram & Another Vs. The Commissioner of Police and Ors. (OA 4097/2011 with connected OAs)
(2) Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others (Civil Appeal No.7431/2008)
The counsel for the respondents equally vehemently contended that there is sufficient evidence before the inquiry officer to come to the conclusion that the allegations are proved. The counsel for the respondents has taken us through the entire evidence of all the PWs and submitted that simply because the CD is not produced shall not be a ground for giving reliefs prayed for in this OA. He submitted that though the CD was not exhibited and though there is an observation by the appellate authority that there is no evidence regarding the demanding or taking of the bribe by the applicant yet as held by the appellate authority there is some evidence though it is a weak evidence for holding that the applicant was guilty of the misconduct. He further submitted that as there is sufficient evidence, the judgments relied upon by the counsel for the applicant is not applicable.
The law relating to judicial review by the Tribunal in the departmental enquiries has been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the following judgments:
(1). In the case of K.L.Shinde Vs. State of Mysore (1976) 3 SCC 76), the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 9 observed as under:-
"9. Regarding the appellant's contention that there was no evidence to substantiate the charge against him, it may be observed that neither the High Court nor this Court can re-examine and re-assess the evidence in writ proceedings. Whether or not there is sufficient evidence against a delinquent to justify his dismissal from service is a matter on which this Court cannot embark. It may also be observed that departmental proceedings do not stand on the same footing as criminal prosecutions in which high degree of proof is required. It is true that in the instant case reliance was placed by the Superintendent of Police on the earlier statements made by the three police constables including Akki from which they resiled but that did not vitiate the enquiry or the impugned order of dismissal, as departmental proceedings are not governed by strict rules of evidence as contained in the Evidence Act. That apart, as already stated, copies of the statements made by these constables were furnished to the appellant and he cross-examined all of them with the help of the police friend provided to him. It is also significant that Akki admitted in the course of his statement that he did make the former statement before P. S. I. Khada-bazar police station, Belgaum, on November 21, 1961 (which revealed appellant's complicity in the smuggling activity) but when asked to explain as to why he made that statement, he expressed his inability to do so. The present case is, in our opinion, covered by a decision of this Court in State of Mysore v. Shivabasappa, (1963) 2 SCR 943=AIR 1963 SC 375 where it was held as follows:-
"Domestic tribunals exercising quasi-judicial functions are not courts and therefore, they are not bound to follow the procedure prescribed for trial of actions in courts nor are they bound by strict rules of evidence. They can, unlike courts, obtain all information material for the points under enquiry from all sources, and through all channels, without being fettered by rules and procedure which govern proceedings in court. The only obligation which the law casts on them is that they should not act on any information which they may receive unless they put it to the party against who it is to be used and give him a fair opportunity to explain it. What is a fair opportunity must depend on the facts and circumstances of each case, but where such an opportunity has been given, the proceedings are not open to attack on the ground that the enquiry was not conducted in accordance with the procedure followed in courts.
In respect of taking the evidence in an enquiry before such tribunal, the person against whom a charge is made should know the evidence which is given against him, so that he might be in a position to give his explanation. When the evidence is oral, normally the explanation of the witness will in its entirety, take place before the party charged who will have full opportunity of cross-examining him. The position is the same when a witness is called, the statement given previously by him behind the back of the party is put to him, and admitted in evidence, a copy thereof is given to the party and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine him. To require in that case that the contents of the previous statement should be repeated by the witness word by word and sentence by sentence, is to insist on bare technicalities and rules of natural justice are matters not of form but of substance. They are sufficiently complied with when previous statements given by witnesses are read over to them, marked on their admission, copies thereof given to the person charged and he is given an opportunity to cross-examine them." Again in the case of B.C.Chaturvedi Vs. UOI & Others (AIR 1996 SC 484) at para 12 and 13, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:-
"12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in eye of the Court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of a misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned to determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent officer or whether rules of natural justice be complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor of proof of fact or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent office is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal on its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to reappreciate the evidence and to arrive at the own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry of where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.
The disciplinary authority is the sole judge of facts. Where appeal is presented, the appellate authority has co-extensive power to reappreciate the evidence or the nature of punishment. In a disciplinary inquiry the strict proof of legal evidence and findings on that evidence are not relevant. Adequacy of evidence or reliability of evidence cannot be permitted to be canvassed before the Court/Tribunal. In Union of India v. H. C. Goel (1964) 4 SCR 718 : (AIR 1964 SC 364), this Court held at page 728 (of SCR): (at p 369 of AIR), that if the conclusion, upon consideration of the evidence, reached by the disciplinary authority, is perverse or suffers from patent error on the face of the record or based on no evidence at all, a writ of certiorari could be issued". ecently in the case of Union of India and Others Vs. P.Gunasekaran (2015(2) SCC 610), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
"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, re-appreciating even the evidence before the enquiry officer. The finding on Charge no. 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 Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, shall not venture into re-appreciation 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 in conducting the proceedings; natural justice
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 consideration;
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."
In view of the facts of the case narrated above and in view of the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court referred to above and in view of the fact that the counsel for the applicant has not brought to our notice violation of any procedural rules or principles of natural justice, the OA requires to be dismissed.
Accordingly, OA is dismissed. No order as to costs.