Shri Azad Singh vs Union of India (UOI) and Others

Sunil Gaur, J.—On 11th February, 1988, Petitioner was Upper Divisional Clerk (UDC) with Respondents No. 2 Corporation and on that day, he is said to have misbehaved with the senior officer of Respondents No. 2 and in this regard, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by Respondents No. 2 against the Petitioner, which culminated into dismissal of the Petitioner from service. On the basis of the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17), impugned order (Annexure P-22) dismissing the Petitioner from service was passed by Respondents No. 2 on 28th January, 1993. Petitioner had preferred a statutory Appeal (Annexure P-23) against the order of dismissal and vide order (Annexure P-25), impugned order of dismissal was affirmed by the Appellate Authority. In this petition, the Petitioner is seeking quashing of his dismissal order (Annexure P-22) and the consequential reliefs.

The stand of the Petitioner is that he was the General Secretary of the Staff Union of Respondents No. 2 � Corporation and he used to take up grievances of the staff of the Corporation with the Management of Respondents No. 2 from time to time and so, the Petitioner had become eye sore to the Management of the Respondents No. 2 - Corporation and the Managing Director of Respondents No. 2 � Corporation had several times, threatened the Petitioner with dire consequences because of Petitioner''s active participation in the Staff Union activities. According to the Petitioner, a false complaint was made by Mr. R. Dayal, then Deputy Chief Engineer of the Respondents No. 2 - Corporation against the Petitioner regarding Petitioner misbehaving with above said Mr. R. Dayal, in the evening of 11th February, 1998. It was also alleged that the Petitioner was under the influence of liquor at the time of this incident and the Petitioner had purportedly become furious because senior officer Mr. R. Dayal had not cleared the file pertaining to Petitioner''s "efficiency bar" for a long time. Petitioner is alleged to have told his senior officer R. Dayal that he had decided to leave the Respondents No. 2 -Corporation and he would shoot him and this was purportedly said by the Petitioner in the presence of Chowkidar Balbir Singh and in the presence of the employees Mathew and Jeewan Singh.

On the basis of the complaint (Annexure P-1) made by Mr. R. Dayal against the Petitioner, inquiry proceedings (Annexure P-2) commenced against the Petitioner. Since the Inquiry Officer was transferred, therefore, vide order (Annexure P-11) a new Inquiry Officer was appointed and the Deputy Law Officer of the Respondents No. 2 - Corporation was appointed as a Presenting Officer and the Petitioner also sought the assistance of a legal practitioner to defend him in the inquiry proceedings, but vide order (Annexure P-15) the aforesaid request of the Petitioner was declined.

The case of the Petitioner is that he was not allowed to enter the premises of Respondents No. 2 - Corporation without permission and on 7th October, 1992, he was telegraphically informed that he has to appear before the Inquiry Officer on the next day and when the Petitioner went to the premises of Respondents No. 2 � Corporation, he was not allowed to enter and in this regard, he had sent a letter to the Inquiry Officer. It is a matter of record that evidence of three witnesses was recorded by the Inquiry Officer on that day and on the next date, Petitioner had led his evidence before the Inquiry Officer and thereafter, the inquiry against the Petitioner concluded vide Report (Annexure P-17) holding the Petitioner guilty of threatening Mr. R. Dayal, then Deputy Chief Engineer of Respondents No. 2 � Corporation. Impugned order (Annexure P-22) is based on the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17).

Challenge to the impugned order (Annexure P-22) by the Petitioner is on the ground that there is no evidence on record to support the charge against the Petitioner and the alleged incident, in fact, did not take place. Gross violation of principles of natural justice is alleged by the Petitioner by asserting that opportunity to cross-examine of the witnesses was not afforded to the Petitioner and thus, there is a denial of a legal right, which vitiates the inquiry proceedings and thereby nullifying the impugned order (Annexure P-22). The grievance made by the Petitioner that he was pitted against the Respondents No. 2 � Corporation, who was defended by the Presenting Officer, who was a Law Officer earlier, and thus, the Petitioner was discriminated against by the Respondents No. 2 � Corporation. Finally, it is stated on behalf of the Petitioner that the order (Annexure P-25) dismissing Petitioner''s statutory Appeal is a non-speaking order, which is against principles of natural justice.

To meet the aforesaid case set up by the Petitioner, contesting Respondents No. 2 � Corporation, in its counter affidavit, has denied that the Petitioner was not allowed to have the assistance of Mr. N.P. Kapila, Deputy Manager (Finance) SAIL to assist the Petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. It is pointed out that vide letter of 22nd October, 1988, the Petitioner was granted permission, who had Mr. Kapila as his Defence Assistant and it is categorically denied that the employers of Mr. Kapila has refused to relieve him to assist the Petitioner in the inquiry proceedings. It has been specifically denied that the Petitioner was not permitted to join the inquiry proceedings on 8th October, 1992. The stand of the contesting Respondents No. 2 - Corporation is that since the order based on Inquiry Report was legal, therefore, it was accepted by the Appellate Authority and in such a situation, the order of the Appellate Authority need not be a speaking one. It is asserted by the contesting Respondent that the principles of natural justice have been complied with and the punishment awarded is proportionate to the charge proved and therefore, this petition deserves dismissal.

In the rejoinder filed by the Petitioner, the contents of the writ petition have been reiterated.

After having heard Counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material on record, I find that what is required to be seen is that as to whether the Petitioner was granted an effective opportunity of hearing or not, or whether there is violation of principles of natural justice or not.

The charge (Annexure-I) framed against the Petitioner is as under:

Shri Azad Singh, while functioning as UDC in the NRDC, on 11th February, 1988 at about 7.30 PM had misbehaved with a senior Officer of NRDC, namely Shri R. Dayal, Dy. Chief Engineer, by abusing him and threatening him with dire consequences, when Shri R. Dayal was leaving the office premises after official duties Shri Azad Singh was also found to be in a drunken state during the above alteration.

Shri Azad Singh, by his above acts, exhibited lack of devotion to duty, and conduct unbecoming of an employee of NRDC, thereby contravening Rule 22 and is also violating of Rule 3(1)(ii)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, as applicable to the employees of NRDC.

Sd/- N.K. Sharma.

The three points for determination as formulated by the Inquiry Officer in these inquiry proceedings are as follows:

(i) Whether Shri Azad Singh was present at the main gate of the office between 7.30 PM on 11.12.1988.

(ii) Whether Shri Azad Singh was under the influence of liquor on 11.12.1988 at the time of altercation.

(iii) Whether Shri Azad Singh use abusive language against Shri R. Dayal and threatened to shoot him.

According to the contesting Respondents, this incident was witnessed by Mr. P.T. Mathew, Mr. Balbir Singh (Security Guard) and Driver � Ram Lal and their evidence was recorded by the Inquiry Officer on 8th October, 1992. As per the proceedings sheet, (Annexure P-19) of this date, Petitioner was telegraphically informed a day earlier about this hearing and the Petitioner did not appear before the Inquiry Officer on 8th October, 1992 and as reflected in the inquiry proceedings (Annexure P-19), he had sent a letter, whereby he had stated that he was not allowed to enter the premises of the Respondents No. 2 � Corporation. It is interesting to note that in the appeal (Annexure P-23), the stand taken by the Petitioner was that he could not appear before the Inquiry Officer on the date when the evidence was recorded because he had received telegram on the date of hearing at noon time, i.e., at 1 PM, whereas, the inquiry was fixed on that day at 10.30 AM. No grievance has been made by the Petitioner in his appeal (Annexure P-23) about the lack of assistance to him in the inquiry proceedings, nor is it stated in the appeal (Annexure P-23) that the request of the Petitioner to provide Mr. N.P. Kapila, as Defence Assistant was denied by Respondents No. 2 -Corporation to him.

In the written synopsis filed by the Petitioner, he has maintained that he had received the telegram on 8th October, 1992 at noon time, i.e., at 1 PM and when the Petitioner had reached the office of the Respondents No. 2 - Corporation on that day, he was not allowed to enter the premises.

To test the aforesaid stand of the Petitioner, the proceeding sheet (Annexure P-19) of the next date of hearing before the Inquiry Officer, i.e., of 21st October, 1992, has been perused and it reveals that Petitioner had informed the Inquiry Officer that he could not appear on the last date because he had received the telegram on the day of the hearing only, i.e., on 8th October, 1992, but it is matter of record that the telegram (Ex.D-1) indicated that it was sent on 7th October, 1992 and it had the stamp and date on it. What is pertinent to note is that it is evident from this order sheet (Annexure P-19) that the Petitioner had not requested the Inquiry Officer to recall the witnesses of the Department for cross-examination and on that day, Petitioner had stepped into witness box and had deposed before the Inquiry Officer. Not only that, he had got two more witnesses examined in his defence.

This court is conscious of the fact that the merits of the case are not to be gone into in the writ proceedings and the evidence on record is not to be re-appreciated. However, for a limited purpose, evidence of the Petitioner (Annexure P-19) needs to be looked into and the purpose is to find out as to whether the Petitioner, in his evidence, had stated anything about the circumstances which restrained him from participating in the inquiry proceedings. Evidence of the Petitioner (Annexure P-19) is completely silent about the grievances made by the Petitioner before this Court, i.e., regarding lack of assistance by Defence Assistant and about Petitioner receiving telegram in the noon time on the date of hearing or about alleged vindictive attitude of respondent Nos. 2 & 3. It is also silent regarding petitioner being stopped from entering venue of Inquiry on 8th October, 1992. Nothing had stopped the Petitioner from placing on record the certificate of the Postal Authorities and of proving it to show that the telegram was received by him on the date of hearing, i.e., on 8th October, 1992 at noon time.

Now the Petitioner cannot be heard to say that he was not given effective opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses or that he was not permitted to have the assistance of a Defence Assistant. In the face of the evidence of Mr. P.T. Mathew, Senior Assistant, Complainant - Mr. R. Dayal and Driver - Mr. Ram Lal (Annexure P-19 (colly) it cannot be said that the present case is of no evidence. Petitioner, in his evidence before the Inquiry Officer, has taken a plea of alibi, which has not been accepted by the Inquiry Officer. According to the Petitioner the charge against him was of threatening Mr. R. Dayal with dire consequences, whereas, as per Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17), Petitioner was found guilty of threatening to shoot Mr. R. Dayal. I fail to understand as to what difference aforesaid variation in the nature of the allegation would make. There is no worthwhile difference between threatening a person with dire consequences and of threatening to shoot him. It is nothing more than hair splitting.

Since the Petitioner did not avail of the opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses of the department, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of the Petitioner to say that there is delay of four days in lodging of the complaint by Mr. R. Dayal. It was open for the Petitioner to have cross-examined the Complainant about it. Since there is no denial of the opportunity to the cross-examine the witness of the department by the Respondent, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any violation of principles of natural justice.

Upon perusal of the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17), I find that it does not disclose any non-application of mind. In fact, Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17) reveals that the Inquiry Officer has fully applied his mind and has come to a conclusion that it did not stand proved that the Petitioner was under the influence of liquor. However, the plea of alibi of the Petitioner has been rejected by the Inquiry Officer of merits, while dealing with the evidence and the Inquiry Officer has fairly concluded that the charge stands partially proved to the extent that the Petitioner had threatened Mr. R. Dayal and this conduct of the Petitioner is unbecoming of an employee, which is violating of Rule 3(1)(iii) of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964.

In my considered view, the Inquiry Officer has acted in a most fair manner in conducting the inquiry and the impugned order (Annexure P-22) based upon the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17) does not suffer from any material or procedural irregularity.

As regards order of the Appellate Authority (Annexure P-25) is concerned, it is evident therefrom that it has concurred with the impugned order (Annexure P-22), which is based upon the Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17), which is self speaking and detailed one. When the Appellate Authority affirms the decision of the Disciplinary Authority, then it need not give separate reasons. It has been so declared by the Apex Court in the case of S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, . I do not find any infirmity in the decision making process adopted by the Respondents No. 2 � Corporation, nor do I find any violation on the principles of natural justice by the Respondents No. 2 � Corporation in this case. The Inquiry Report (Annexure P-17) and the impugned order (Annexure P-22) based thereon is well considered order and it does not stand vitiated by any extraneous consideration. Impugned order is neither arbitrary nor capricious. No good ground for quashing the impugned order is made out. This petition deserves dismissal and is accordingly dismissed.

No costs.