Const.Ram Sing vs Govt. Of NCTD Delhi

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 set aside the impugned order at A-1 to A-3 to further direct the respondents to treat the period from (10.12.11 to 01.01.12, 04.04.12 to 11.07.12 and 14.09.12 to 04.10.12) as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.

Or/and

ii) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Tribunal may deems fit and proper may also awarded to the applicant."

The relevant facts of the case are that the applicant absented himself from duty for a period of 140 days without intimation in violation of the provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O.No.111 of Delhi Police and with respect to the same a Show Cause Notice ((SCN) dated 14.03.2013 was issued to the applicant to show cause as to why the said period shall not be treated as 'Dies-non'. A SCN is extracted below:-

"SHOW CAUSE NOTICE

You, Head Const. Ram Singh No.863/NE, while posted at PS Seelam Pur, Gokal Puri & Distt. Line/NE absented yourself from the duty on the following occasions without any intimation:

Sl.No.

Absent DD No.

Arrival DD No.

Period of absent

1

40-B/10.12.11

26-B/01.01.12

22

days  3  hours  &  10

minutes (say as 22 days)

2.

36/04.04.12

44/11.07.12

98

days  7  hours  &  5

minutes (say as 98 days)

3.

9-B/15.09.12

8-B/04.10.12

19

days  18  hours&  5

minutes (say as 20 days)

The above act on your part is clear violation of the provisions of CCS (Leave) Rules, 1972 and S.O.No.111 of Delhi Police. This also amounts to gross misconduct, carelessness and dereliction in the discharge of your official duty.

You are hereby called upon to show cause as to why your above-mentioned un-authorized absentee period should not be treated as 'Dies-non' i.e. period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes on the principles of "No work-No pay". Your reply, if any, should reach this office within 15 days of the receipt of this Notice, failing which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this regard and the case will be decided on merits."

The applicant submitted written reply on 26.03.2013. After considering his reply, the competent authority in view of the facts and circumstances of the case was not convinced and passed an order treating the above said absentee period of 140 days as 'dies-non' vide order dated 06.05.2013. The relevant portion of the order is extracted below:

"Head Const. Ram Singh No.863/NE received the S.C.N on 17.03.13 and he submitted the written reply on 26.03.13. I have gone through his reply. The plea for being absent, taken by him is found not convincing as such I am constrained to the S.C.N. and treat his above-mentioned absentee period i.e. 140 days for "Dies-non" i.e. period not spent on duty for all intents and purposes on the principles of "No work-No pay", which will not be regularized in any manner."

The counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that the applicant was not keeping well during those days and the respondents authorities have not considered his reply in a right prospective, as such the said order is bad in law. In support of his contention, the counsel for the applicant relied upon the following orders of this Tribunal:

(1) Constable Vijay Kumar Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D through Commissioner of Police and Ors (OA No. 1680/2007).

(2) Constable Gopal Vs. Govt. of N.C.T.D through Commissioner of Police and Ors (OA No. 779/2007).

(3) Shyam Bhai Vs Govt. of N.C.T.D through Commissioner of Police and Ors (OA No. 3960/2014).

He also produced several fitness certificates after taking the treatment from the Ayurved Medical Officer, Biwai, District Dausa (Raj.).

The counsel for the respondents vehemently submitted that it is for the respondents authorities to appreciate the explanation and replies and the certificates submitted by the applicant and to came to the conclusion and the respondents authorities have not acted arbitrarily, particularly in view of the facts that nothing prevented the applicant before applying and getting the leave sanctioned before absenting himself. In support of his contention, the counsel for the respondents relied upon the following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Court:

(1) State of UP & others Vs. Ashok Kumar Singh & another (1996) 1 SCC 302).

(2) Durga Prasad (05/RB) (Constable) Vs. Govt. of NCT of Delhi ( 2003(68) DRJ 73- Delhi High Court) In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court brought to our notice by the counsel for respondents, we are of the opinion that the order dated 06.05.2013 does not suffer from any infirmity.

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".

Recently 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 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 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.