Rajinder Singh Siwatch vs State of Haryana and Another

M.M. Kumar, J.—The unsuccessful petitioner-appellant has filed the instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent against the judgment dated 8.2.2010 rendered by the learned Single Judge upholding the order, dated 25.11.2004 (P-11) along with the dissenting note, which has been passed by the competent authority disagreeing the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer, as well as subsequent order of punishment dated 6.4.2005 (P-12) inflicting the punishment of stoppage of one annual grade increment without cumulative effect, to which approval has been accorded by the Government vide order dated 22.9.2009 (P-13), as communicated to the petitioner-appellant on 15.10.2009 (P-14). The undisputed facts of the instant appeal are that for the failure of the petitioner-appellant to control the situation in the District Jail, Sonepat, on 30.6.1999, when a quarrel had taken place between two rival groups of hard core criminals and under-trial prisoners, a charge sheet was issued to him. It is pertinent to mention here that in the said incident one of the injured convict, namely, Jaswant died on the same day. The allegation against the petitioner-appellant is that being the Deputy Superintendent of Jail, Sonepat, he did not take immediate steps to control the situation, inasmuch as he failed to ring the alarm in the jail so that the staff employed in the jail could have assembled and the situation would have come under control immediately. Secondly there was delay in shifting the seriously injured persons to hospital, which has caused death of one injured convict Jaswant and the State of Haryana has to pay compensation of Rs. 2,00,000/- to his family members to comply with the orders of the Human Rights Commission.

After conducting the inquiry under Rule 11 of the Punjab Jail Department Executive Staff (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1943, the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, who was the Enquiry Officer, absolved the petitioner-appellant of all the charges levelled against him, vide his report dated 24.11.2003 (P-10). On 25.11.2004, the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary, Government of Haryana, Jails Department, while disagreeing with the report of the Enquiry Officer issued a show cause notice to the petitioner-appellant proposing punishment of stoppage of two increments with cumulative effect (P-11). Copy of the dissenting note recorded by the Disciplinary Authority also accompanied with the said notice and the same is reproduced as under:

DISSENTING NOTE

The quarrel between the prisoners at Distt. Jail, Sonepat had occurred at 6.00 AM at the time of opening of the jail in the morning and the injured prisoner Jaswant was shifted to Civil Hospital Sonepat at about 8.00 A.M. It is clear that you did not make immediate arrangement for shifting the seriously injured inmate to the hospital though he was bleeding profusely which resulted into his death in the afternoon of the same day. The delay in shifting the inmate resulted in his death. Shri Siwatch can not be absolve of this charge/reason.

Taking the cognizance of this death of inmate Jaswant, National Human Rights Commission ordered the State Government to pay the compensation to the tune of Rs. 2.00 lacs to the next Kin''s of the deceased which has been paid to the family of the deceased. This was due to loose control and loose administration of Sh. Siwatch.

Shri Rajinder Siwatch, Dy. Supdt., Jail was the Chief Executive Officer of the Jail but he did not order to blow the alarm of the jail at the time of quarrel so that all the staff of the jail could come to jail immediately. There is a provision of alarm in the jail manual (Para No. 410).

Sh. Rajinder Siwatch, Dy. Supdt. Jail, as per the entries of the register No. 16 of the jail did not remain present in the jail for more times.

Eventually, after considering the matter sympathetically, the competent authority i.e. Commissioner and Chief Secretary, Haryana Government, Jail Department, has imposed punishment of stoppage of one annual increment without cumulative effect, vide order dated 6.4.2005 (P-12). On 22.9.2009, the Government accorded approval to the punishment order rejecting the review petition filed by the petitioner-appellant (P-13). On 15.10.2009, another order was passed communicating the decision of the Government to the petitioner-appellant (P-14).

Challenging the aforementioned orders, the petitioner-appellant filed the writ petition before this Court, which has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge by holding as under:

It is settled proposition of law that the High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as a Court of Appeal over the disciplinary proceedings. This Court can only examine the manner of exercise of jurisdiction by the disciplinary authorities and interference is needed only, if, the principles of natural justice have been violated or the order is violative of any statutory provisions. I have considered the order impugned as also the note of dissent recorded by the Govt. disagreeing with the Inquiry Report. Reasons have been recorded. Even the adequacy of the reasons cannot be gone into in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. No violation of principles of natural justice or violation of any rule or law has been projected during the course of arguments.

For the above reasons, I find no basis to interfere in the impugned order. Petition dismissed.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner-appellant we see no legal infirmity in the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly come to the conclusion that the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot act as a Court of Appeal and re-appreciate the evidence or the findings arrived at by the disciplinary authority. The aforesaid issue has come up before Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Surya Dev Rai Vs. Ram Chander Rai and Others, . After threadbare analysis of Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution and considering large number of judicial precedents, their Lordships'' of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in para 38 have, inter alia, recorded the following conclusion:

(8) The High Court in exercise of certiorari or supervisory jurisdiction will not convert itself into a court of appeal and indulge in re-appreciation or evaluation of evidence or correct errors in drawing inferences or correct errors of mere formal or technical character.

The aforesaid view has again been reiterated by Hon''ble the Supreme Court in a recent judgment rendered in the case of Harjinder Singh Vs. Punjab State Warehousing Corporation, Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 551 : (2010) 3 SCC 192. It is thus, evident from the aforesaid judgments that it is only patent error of law apparent on the face of the record which can be corrected by the Court in certiorari jurisdiction.

The learned Single Judge has also categorically recorded a finding that the principles of natural justice have been complied with and adequate reasons have been assigned in the dissenting note, which could also not been gone into in exercise of the writ jurisdiction. It is well settled that the disciplinary authority in case of disagreement with the finding of the inquiring authority is required to record the point or points of such disagreement together with a brief statement of the ground thereof for such a disagreement. The obligation casts on the disciplinary authority is heavier because the ground or reasoning of disagreement which the disciplinary authority may proceeds to record has to be ''sufficient'' to sustain. Ordinarily sufficiency and in-sufficiency of reasoning to sustain the charge would be a question which would not be required to be gone into but it is imperative on the disciplinary authority to record a finding on a charge where it expresses disagreement. It may be for the reason that once inquiring authority has concluded one way or the other then to reverse those findings sufficient reasoning would be necessary to over turn those findings. Therefore, findings cannot be reversed on flimsy grounds. A perusal of the ''Dissenting Note'' would show that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded specific reasons for disagreement with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer on each count. There is an iota of reasoning which has been made part of discussion in order to reach a conclusion that there are sufficient grounds to sustain the charge in support of disagreement. Therefore, the impugned order dated 25.11.2004 (P-11) and the subsequent orders have rightly been sustained by the learned Single Judge. As a sequel to the aforesaid discussion, this appeal fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.