Ravindra Kumar Meena @APPELLANT@Hash State of Rajasthan & Ors.

The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dt. 29th December, 2017 (Annex. 8) passed by the Disciplinary Authority

imposing penalty of dismissal from service. The petitioner has further challenged the order dt. 28th March, 2018 (Annex. 10), passed by the

Appellate Authority rejecting appeal of the petitioner filed against the penalty order.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner, who was working as Constable in C-Company 11th Battalion, RAC (IR) Vajeerabad, Delhi came to be

served with a charge-sheet under Rule 16 of CCA Rules, 1958 vide memo dated 23rd March, 2017.

Charge No. 1 leveled against the petitioner was in respect of producing forged certificate of his educational qualification showing him to be 8th pass

while seeking employment in Police.

Charge No. 2 contained the allegation of misleading the authorities while seeking employment by producing forged education certificate & further

caused loss to public exchequer by drawing salary since appointment in the year 1995. The charges contained in the charge-sheet is reporduced as

hereunder:-

‘vkjksi l[a ;k&1%&

;g fd vki Jh jfoUnz dqekj dkfu0 728 ^lh^ dEiuh 11oha cVkfy;u vkj0,0lh0 ¼vkbZ0vkj)½ othjkckn] fnYyh esa fnukad 02-041995 ls dkfu0 ds in ij

inLFkkfir gSaA vki }kjk bl cVkfy;u esa dkfu0 ds in ij HkrhZ ds le; izLrqr fd;s x;s f’k{kk izek.k i= esa 8oha d{kk dk LfkkukUrj.k izek.k i= jktdh;

ek/;fed fo?kky; chnlj lhdj jktLFkku }kjk izLrqr fd;k x;k] tks izkFkfed tkWp ds vuqlkj QthZ gksuk ik;k x;kAÂ bl izdkj vki }kjk QthZ nLrkost rS;kj dj

vkj0,0lh0 esa dkfu0 ds in ij fu;qfDr izkIr dh x;h gS] tks ,d xEHkhj vuq’kklughurk] vijk/k dh Js.kh esa vkrk gSA vkidk mDr d`R; vkj0,0lh0 tSls

vuq’kkflr cy esa vius drZO;ksa ds izfr ?kksj ykijokgh] vlaosnu’khyrk] mn.Mrk ,oa foHkkx dks xqejkg djrs gq;s xEHkhj nqjkpj.k dh Js.kh esa

vkrk gSA tks jktLFkku flfoy lsok fu;eksa o iqfyl vkpj.k fu;eksa ds izko/kkukuqlkj fu;e fo:) gS tSlk fd vfHkdFkuksa ds fooj.k i= la0 01 esa vafdr gSA

vkjkis la[;k&2%&

;g gS fd vki Jh jfoUnz dqekj dkfu0 728 }kjk dkfu- HkrhZ ds le; izLrqr vkosnu esa d{kk 8oha ds LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= QthZ rjhds ls rS;kj dj vkj0,0lh0

esa dkfu0 ds in ij ukSdjh djrs gq;s foHkkx dks xqejkg fd;k gSA izkFkfed tkWp esa vki }kjk mDr f’k{kk izek.k i= vkids firkth }kjk HkrhZ ds le;

miyC/k djok;k tkuk vafdr fd;k gSA tcfd iz/kkuk/;kid jktdh; ek/;fed fo?kky; chnlj ds dk;kZy; i= Øekad 503 fnukad 21-12-16 ds }kjk ,l0vkj0 ua0 934 ds

vuqlkj vki }kjk d{kk 6 esa fnukas 11-07-1984 dks izos’k fy;k ,oa fnukad 01-071985 ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgus ij vkidk uke fo?kky; ls i`Fkd dj fn;k

x;kAÂ d{kk 8 dk LFkkukkUrj.k izek.k i=@vadrkfydk bl fo? kky; }kjk tkjh ugha fd;k x;k tks izkFkfed tkap esa izekf.kr ik;k x;k gSAÂ bl izdkj vki }kjk

;su&dsu izdkjs.k QthZ dkxtkr rS;kj dj vkj0,0lh0 esa o""kZ 1995 ls QthZ nLrkostksa ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr izkIr dh xbZAÂ ftlls vki }kjk fu;qfDr o""kZ 1995

ls vc rd dkfuLVscy in ds osru Hkrs izkIr dj jktdks""k dks Hkkjh uqdlku igqWpk;k gS] tks fu;ekuqlkj n.Muh; gSA^

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that after receipt of charge-sheet, he submitted an application dt. 8th June, 2017, wherein he requested

that without furnishing him the relevant documents, along with the charge-sheet, proper reply could not be filed and as such the petitioner requested to

supply him as many as 8 documents, for the purpose of giving reply to charge-sheet. The petitioner pleaded in his application that in absence of

supply of the relevant documents, the petitioner would not be able to defend himself.

The petitioner has pleaded that immediately after receipt of charge-sheet, the Disciplinary Authority vide its order dt. 15th May, 2017 (Annex. 2)

appointed one Krishna Chand Dy. Commandant 11th Battalion RAC (IR) as Enquiry Officer and Preetam Singh was appointed as Departmental

representative.

The petitioner has pleaded that he had to send a legal notice dt. 9th June, 2017, through his lawyer wherein it was informed to the respondents that

relevant documents were required to be supplied to the petitioner and the enquiry should not be conducted without supplying the documents, as it

would amount to violation of principles of natural justice.

The petitioner has pleaded in the writ petition that he received notices dt. 9th October, 2017 & 13th October 2017 (Annex. 5 & 6) from the Enquiry

Officer, wherein the petitioner was informed that if he wanted to produce any evidence/file any documents or submit anything in writing, he was free

to do so till 20th October, 2017 and in case petitioner did not take any action, in respect of his own defence by 20th October, 2017, the enquiry

proceedings were to be concluded in absence of co-operation extended by the petitioner.

The petitioner has pleaded in his petition that Enquiry Officer in most unusual manner, without affording any opportunity to the petitioner of cross

examination of the witnesses etc. submitted his report on 25th October, 2017 and found both the charges proved against the petitioner. The petitioner

has pleaded that the

Disciplinary Authority by the impugned order dt. 29th December, 2017 has passed the penalty order and dismissed him from service.

The petitioner has pleaded that he had preferred an appeal before the Appellate Authority and raised several grounds in his appeal. The petitioner

had highlighted the fact in his appeal that the required/relevant documents were not made available to him, for preparing his defence and he had to

send a legal notice through his counsel. The petitioner had highlighted the following lacunas in the Departmental Enquiry conducted against him:-

(i) The petitioner was not afforded any opportunity by the Enquiry Officer to defend himself.

(ii) The petitioner was not given proper notice providing him opportunity to cross examine the witnesses.

(iii) There was no basis to reach to the conclusion that petitioner had shown forged documents relating to his educational qualification.

(iv) All the witnesses who were examined to support the case of the Department, the petitioner was not made aware about the date of examination-

in-chief and further he was not given the list of witnesses, who were sought to be examined.

(v) The Disciplinary Authority without application of mind, passed the penalty order.

(vi) The punishment which was imposed was excessive and entire Departmental Enquiry was initiated with a malafide intention.

The petitioner has pleaded that the Appellate Authority vide order dt. 28th March, 2018, has rejected the appeal of the petitioner and without applying

due application of mind, the said decision has been arrived at by the Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has made following submissions before this Court:-

The petitioner was deprived to defend himself in the Departmental Enquiry from the stage of filing reply to the chargesheet, as he was not given the

documents, which were to be relied upon by the Department in support of their case.

The petitioner was not given any notice by the Enquiry Officer informing him the dates on which proceedings were to be conducted against him.

The Enquiry Officer did not give any notice informing the date of examination-in-Chief of the Department’s witnesses and further no notice

was given intimating the date and time, for cross examination of the witnesses.

The Enquiry Officer had proceeded in ex-parte manner without any justification.

The Disciplinary Authority had not applied his mind and did not consider the procedural lacunas, which were committed by the Enquiry Officer,

while submitting the enquiry report.

The Disciplinary Authority had recorded incorrect facts with respect to the application submitted by the petitioner seeking documents from the

Disciplinary Authority and the Enquiry Officer.

The Disciplinary Authority did not consider that petitioner at no point of time had been given opportunity to defend himself as he was not confronted

with the material sought to be relied upon by the Enquiry Officer and the Disciplinary Authority.

The Disciplinary Authority had not considered that the petitioner had undertaken regular study in the school and had he been given the proper

opportunity, he would have produced the relevant evidence to plead his innocence.

The Appellate Authority did not consider that principles of natural justice were violated during the enquiry proceedings and due to serious lacunas,

report of the Enquiry Officer was required to be ignored.

The Appellate Authority did not consider that the Disciplinary Authority failed to discharge its duties by not taking into account, the relevant facts and

only on the basis of Enquiry Report, the petitioner was punished.

I have heard the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material on record.

This Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has given the following letters to the petitioner:-

Letter dt. 22nd May, 2017.

Letter dt. 30th May, 2017.

Letter dt. 22nd June, 2017.

Letter dt. 7th July, 2017

Letter dt. 8th August, 2017.

Letter dt. 17th August, 2017.

Letter dt. 28th August, 2017.

Letter dt. 5th September, 2017.

Letter dt. 3rd October, 2017.

This Court finds that the petitioner except filing of an application dt. 8th June, 2017, asking for certain documents to be supplied to him, never

responded to any of the letters written by the Enquiry Officer.

This Court finds that by letter dt. 13th October, 2017, the petitioner was given last opportunity to produce any document/adduce evidence/written

submission and if the petitioner failed to submit any response, the Enquiry Officer had clearly informed him, to proceed/conclude the Departmental

Enquiry.

The petitioner further sent a legal notice u/Sec. 80 of CPC on 9th June, 2017 and made the similar request of supplying him certain documents and

further wanted the Enquiry Officer to abstrain himself from proceeding further, as has been informed in the legal notice.

This Court finds that the petitioner at no point of time, till conclusion of the enquiry, has participated in the proceedings and has only taken the plea that

he has been deprived to defend himself properly.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Enquiry Officer collected the evidence in his absence and examined as many as 7

witnesses, this Court finds that since petitioner did not put his appearance, the right of cross examination could not have been afforded to him. The

petitioner cannot be allowed to plead before this Court that due to denial of right of cross examination, his case has been prejudiced, as he has been

deprived from defending himself properly.

The petitioner himself has to be blamed for the situation as the Enquiry Officer has time and again requested him to participate in the Disciplinary

Proceedings initiated against him but the petitioner neither extended any co-operation to the authorities nor he made any efforts to defend himself.Â

The allegation of the petitioner that cross examination is a vital right available to the delinquent & the same cannot be denied, this Court finds that

ample opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to adduce evidence in support of his case but the petitioner abstained himself from the Disciplinary

Proceedings.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the evidence which collected in his absence should not be relied and the Disciplinary

Authority ought to have ignored the said evidence, this Court finds that the Enquiry Officer has summoned the Principal of the School where petitioner

is said to have gone to pass his 8th qualification. The Enquiry Officer after considering the documentary evidence and oral evidence came to the

conclusion that name of the petitioner was struck off from the School Register in the year 1985 when the petitioner is said to have been studying in 6th

Class.

The plea of the petitioner is that he had undertaken the regular studies upto 8th Class & the Enquiry Officer, on the contrary, after recording the

evidence, found that the petitioner had not produced the proper certificate at the time of his engagement in the job in the year 1985.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority has not applied its mind and has passed the order in a routine

manner, this court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has specifically recorded that petitioner at no point of time, extended his co-operation in the

Departmental Enquiry. The show cause notice with the Enquiry report which was given to the petitioner was received by him but he did not

respond back within the stipulated time.

The Disciplinary Authority sent the notice, which was received by the relative-Uncle’s Son of the petitioner on 14th November, 2017. The

Disciplinary Authority further sent second show cause notice on 27th November, 2017, asking the petitioner to respond within seven days. The said

notice was served again on the relative-Uncle’s son of the petitioner on 30th November, 2017. The petitioner even after receipt of the show

cause notices, before the penalty order being passed, did not respond at all and he has unnecessarily tried to make out a case that Disciplinary

Authority has not considered the entire evidence.

This Court finds that the delinquent who is served with the enquiry report and the show cause notice, if does not respond within the reasonable time

then no illegality can be attached to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the penalty has been rightly imposed by the Disciplinary

Authority.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the Disciplinary Authority ought to have considered the procedural lacunas which were

committed by the Enquiry Officer, this Court finds that the Disciplinary Authority has recorded all the proceedings which were conducted by the

Enquiry Officer on different dates, where the total non-co-operation of the petitioner was reflected.

The relevant portion of the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority is quoted as hereunder:-

“vkjksfir deZpkjh ds tckc ls vlger gksdj buds Åij yxk;s x;s vkjksiksa dh tkWp djokus gsrq bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k dzekad 1232&37 fnukad 1505-

2017 ds rgr~ Jh d`"".kpUn fMIVh dek.MsUV] ^^tkWp vf/kdjh^^ ,oa Jh izhre flag] IykVwu dek.Mj ^^bZ^^ dEiuh ^^miLFkkid vf/kdkjh^^ 11 oha cVkfy;u

vkj,lh ¼vkbZ0vkj0½ fnYyh dks fu;qDr fd;kA dEiuh dek.Mj eq[;ky; LVkQ 11 oha cVkfy;u vkj,lh ¼vkbZ-vkj-½ fnYyh ds dk;kZy; i= dzekad 426

fnukad 10-07-2017 ds rgr Jh jfoUnz dqekj dkfu0 728 ¼fuyfEcr½ }kjk buds fo:} foHkkxh; tkWp fu;e&16 lhlh, esa cpko gsrq Jh dkuflag iq= Jh

exsat flag] fuoklh ukFkwlj] rglhy& Jh ek/kksiqj ftyk lhdj jktLFkku dks cpko vf/kdjh dh fu;qfDr gsrq izkFkZuk gsrq izLrqr djus ij bl dk;kZy; ds vkns'k

dzekad 2032&35 fnukad 27-07-2017 ds rgr buds pkgsuqlkj cpko vf/kdkjh dh vuqefr iznku dj nh xbZA Jh d`"".kpUn] fMIVh dek.MsUV tkWp]Â }kjk

izLrqr foHkkxh; tkWp fjiksVZ tfj;sa dk;kZy; i=kad 523 fnukad 25-10-2017 ds ek/;e ls bl dk;kZy; esa izsf""kr dj vkjksfir deZpkjh ds fo:} foHkkxh; tkWp

fu;e&16 lhlh, esa vkjksfir nksuks vkjksi dks iw.kZr% izekf.kr ekurs gq, tkWp izfrosnu bl dk;kZy; esa izLrqr fd;k tks fuEukuqlkj gS %& vkjksi izFke]

dkfu- 728 Jh jfoUnz dqekj lh dEiuh 11 oha cVkfy;u vkj,lh ¼vkbZ-vkj-½ fnYyh }kjk HkrhZ ds le; izLrqr 8 oha d{kk ds LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= ,oa

pfj= izek.k i= tks bZ,Dlih 7 ,oa 19 gS ftlds vk/kkj ij muds }kjk dkfu- ds in ij fu;qfDr iznku dh xbZ tks dze'k% bZ,Dlih& 20]21]23]24]25 ,oa

ihMCY;w&7 ds c;kuksa ls izekf.kr gSA dkfu- jfoUnz dqekj }kjk izLrqr 8 oha d{kk ds LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= ,oa pfj= izek.k i= tks bZ,Dlih&7 ,oa 19 dk

QthZ ik;k tkuk bZ,Dlih&1]8]14 ,oa ihMCY;w&1]2]3 ,oa 5 ds c;kuksa ls ,oa iz/kkuk/;kid jk-ek- fo|ky;] chnlj }kjk ,lvkj jkftLVj i= izkfIr jftLVj ,oa i=

izs""k.k jftLVj dh lR;kfir Nk;k izfr;ksa ls Li""V QthZ ik;k tkuk rFkk buds vk/kkj ij QthZ rfjds ls foHkkx esa fu;qfDr izkIr djuk izekf.kr gSA vr% esjs

foosd esa vkjksi izFke iw.kZ :i ls izekf.kr gSA vkjksi f}rh; dkfu0 728 jfoUnz dqekj }kjk HkrhZ ds le; izLrqr vkosnu i= esa d{kk vkBoha ds

LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= QthZ rfjds ls rS;kj dj vkj,lh esa dkfuLVscy ds in ij inLFkkfir gksuk ,oa foHkkx dks xqejkg djuk bZ,Dlih&1]8 ,oa 14 rFkk

ihMCY;w 1]2]3]5 ds c;kuksa rFkk Jh txnh'k izlkn iz/kkuk/;kid jk-ek- fo|ky; chnlj }kjk miyc/k djok;s x;s ,l-vkj- jftLVj] i= izkfIr jftLVj ,oa i= izs""k.k

jftLVj dh lR;kfir Nk;k izfr;ksa ls Li""V izekf.kr gSA dk-fu- jfoUnz dqekj }kjk jk-ekfo|ky; chnlj esa d{kk 6 esa fnukad 11-07-1984 dks izos'k ysuk ,oa

fnukad 01-071985 ls yxkrkj vuqifLFkr jgus ij fo|ky; ls uke i`Fkd fd;k tkuk bZ,Dlih&1]8]14 ,oa rFkk ihMCY;w&1]2]3] ls ,oa ,l-vkj- jftLVj dh lR;kfir

Nk;k izfr;ksa ls Li""V izekf.kr gSA d{kk 8 dk LFkkukUrj.k izek.k i= tks bZ,Dlih&7 gS jk-m-izk- fo|ky; chnlj }kjk tkjh ugha fd;k tkuk ,oa bldk QthZ ik;k

tkuk bZ,Dlih&1]8]14 ,oa ihMCY;w&1]2]3]5 fd c;kuksa ls rFkk ,l-vkjjftLVj dh lR;kfir Nk;k izfr;ksa ls Li""V izekf.kr gSA vr% esjs foosd esa vkjksi

f}rh; iw.kZ Li""Vr% izekf.kr gSA bl foHkkxh; tkWp ls lEcfU/kr leLr fjdkWMZ bl dk;kZy; esa izkIr gksus ds mijkUr tkap vf/kdkjh Jh d`"".kpUnz]

fMIVh dek.MsUV }kjk izLrqr foHkkxh; tkap ls lger gksrs gq, bl dk;kZy; i=kad 2892&93 fnukad 27-10-2017 ds }kjk vkjksfir deZpkjh dks vius i{k esa

vfUre cpko dk volj fn;s tkus gsrq jktLFkku vlSfud lsok,sa ¼oxhZdj.k] fu;a=.k ,oa vihy½ fu;ekoyh 1958 ds fu;e 16¼10½ ds vUrxZr dkj.k crkvks

uksfVl tkjh dj tkap fjiksVZ dh izfr lqiqnZ dh xbZ ,oa 15 fnol esa vkjksfir deZpkjh ls mldk tcko pkgk x;kA vkjksfir deZpkjh us bl dk;kZy; }kjk tkjh dkj.k

crkvksa uksfVl dks fnukad 30-10-2017 dks Lo;a }kjk rkfey fd;k x;kA dkfu- }kjk fu;r le; ij izfrmrj izLrqr ugha djus ij dk;kZy; ds i= dzekad 3197&99

fnukad 14-11-2017 tkjh djds rgr Lej.k i= tkjh djds 05 fnol esa pkgk x;k ftls fuyfEcr dkfu- ds ?kj ij ugha feyus ds dkj.k dkfu- ds ppsj HkkbZ Jh jk/ks';ke

}kjk izkIr fd;kA blds mijkUr dkfu- }kjk izfrmrj dk;kZy; esa izLrqr ugha djus ij dk;kZy; ds dzekad 3332&33 fnukad 27-11-2017 ds rgr 07 fnol esa iqu%

Lej.k i= f}rh; tkjh fd;k x;k] ftls dkfu- ds rkÃ… ds yMds Jh lqjs'k dqekj }kjk fnukad 30-11-2017 dks rkfey fd;k x;kA dkfu- dks ckj&ckj viuk tokc izLrqr

djus gsrq iw.kZ volj fn;k x;k gSA blds mijkUr Hkh dkfu- tkucw>dj lg;ksx ugha dj foHkkxh; tkWp ds fuLrkj.k vuko';d nsjh dj jgk gS ftlls tkWp izHkkfor

dh tk lds] blls ;g Li""V gksrk gS] fd vkjksih vius cpko esa rdZlaxr vH;kosnu] izek.k izLrqr djus esa l{ke ugha gSA mDr tkWp izfdz;k ds nkSjku izkIr

leLr izek.kksa ,oa tkWp dk;Zokgh rFkk dk;kZy; fjdkWMZ ds vkj/kkj ij v|ksgLrk{kjdrkZ fuEukuqlkj fu.kZ; vkns'k tkjh djrk gSA^

This Court does not find any irregularity or illegality in the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The submission

of learned counsel for the petitioner that Appellate Authority has not decided the appeal, as per the requirement of Rule 30 of the CCA Rules, 1958,

this Court finds that the Appellate Authority has called the record from the Department and it has specifically recorded a finding on the basis of the

record, that petitioner had appeared in the office of the Disciplinary Authority on 5th May, 2017 and after receiving the documents, he had given the

receipt thereto.

This Court finds that the Appellate Authority has taken into consideration all the pleas taken by the petitioner and after considering the entire evidence,

it has been recorded that the petitioner had not shown any interest at any point of time to cooperate with the authorities in respect of the allegations

leveled against him.

The Appellate Authority has also given a personal hearing to the petitioner before passing the final order.

The petitioner at all the times was given ample opportunity in the departmental proceedings to prove his innocence by the Enquiry Officer, Disciplinary

Authority and by the Appellate Authority but he has not produced any material in support of his case which could prove that he had obtained or got the

employment after producing correct certificates relating to the educational qualification.

This Court finds that in the instant case the delinquentpetitioner in spite of being charged for producing forged documents, had shown total indifference

& apathy and has not shown any inclination to defend himself except by sending letters and legal notice to the respondents. The conduct of the

petitioner does not make entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

Accordingly, the present writ petition lacks merit and the same is dismissed.