Full Judgment Text
$~25 to 28
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: January 08, 2014
+ W.P.(C) 3538/2001
GURDEV SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
U.O.I. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with
Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and
Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant
Commandant, CISF
W.P.(C) 3540/2001
BALWINDER KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
U.O.I. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with
Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and
Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant
Commandant, CISF
W.P.(C) 3541/2001
ANGREJ SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
U.O.I. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with
Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and
Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant
Commandant, CISF
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 1 of 9
W.P.(C) 3628/2001
BACHITTAR SINGH ..... Petitioner
Represented by: Mr.H.S.Dahiya, Advocate
versus
U.O.I. & ORS. ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Richa Kapoor, Advocate with
Ms.Saahila Lamba, Advocate and
Mr.A.K.Arora, Assistant
Commandant, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. It is not disputed by the petitioners that on February 04, 1998 they
were attached to the CISF Unit at Bhillai and were working as constables. It
is also not in dispute that on May 02, 1998 a charge memo was issued to all
the four writ petitioners alleging identical charges, being two in number,
containing identical statement of imputation as also list of relied upon
documents and names of witnesses except proposed PW-4. Insp.K.C.Sharma
was proposed to be examined as PW-4 pertaining to the charge sheet issued
against petitioner Angrej Singh. Insp.Vijay was proposed to be examined as
PW-4 pertaining to the charge sheet issued against the three other writ
petitioners.
3. The two Articles of Charge, which we note are concededly identical
except name of the petitioner corresponding to the charge sheet issued, read
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 2 of 9
as under: (We have noted the two charges pertaining to Ct.Angrej Singh):-
“Article-I of the Charge
Force No 961402637 Constable Angrej Singh on 4-2-98 during
engagement ceremony of the s on of Shri Santosh Singh, BSP
employee at 5A Sarak No.13, Sector-2, indulged in undesirable
behavior which shows gross indiscipliness.”
Article-II of the Charge
Force No 961402637 Constable Angrej Singh on 4-2-98 at
about 10:40 hrs in the night again went with other Force
personnel and indulged in beating/breaking at the residence of
Shri Santosh Singh, BSP employee at 5A Sarak No.13, Sector-I.
For this act, a criminal case was lodged against the Constable
in Bhilai Police Station. By this conduct Constable Gurdev
tarnished the image of the Force.”
4. The statement of imputation in support of the two Articles of Charge
reads as under:-
“Article-I of the Charge
Force No 961402637 Constable Angrej Singh on 4-2-98
participated in the engagement ceremony of the son of Shri
Santosh Singh, BSP employee after going at 5A Sarak No.13,
Sector-2. On this occasion the Constable indulged in
undesirable behavior there which shows gross indiscipliness.
Article-II of the Charge
“Force No 961402637 Constable Angrej Singh on 4-2-98 at
about 10:40 hrs in the night again went with other Force
personnel and indulged in beating/breaking at the residence of
Shri Santosh Singh, BSP employee at 5A Sarak No.13, Sector-I
in which Satinder Singh relative of Santosh Singh received
injuries and broke the glasses of car of another relative Shri
Tirlok Singh standing outside the residence. For this
punishable act of the Constable, Shri Tirlok Singh lodged a
report in Bhilai Police Station. On the basis of this the local
police registered a criminal case against the Constable. By this
conduct Constable tarnished the image of the Force.”
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 3 of 9
5. For reasons unknown separate inquiries were held notwithstanding
commonality of allegations of acting in concert against the petitioners.
6. Of the 5 proposed witnesses to be examined, PW-1 Trilok Singh did
not turn up at either 4 inquiry proceedings and thus he was not examined.
We may note that on his statement FIR 64/1998 PS Bhillai was registered.
7. The FIR in question has been proved at each inquiry as Ex.1 on the
testimony of the police station incharge examined as PW-3. The FIR under
Section 154 Cr.P.C. registered on the statement of Trilok Singh records that
the incident in respect whereof the complaint was made took place at the
residence of Santosh Singh. Briefly stated, the FIR records an engagement
ceremony of the son of Santosh Singh at which petitioners who were present
and were known to the complainant. It records that petitioners indulged in
undesirable activities and thus were told to leave. They returned at around
10:40 PM armed with lathis and rods and entered the tent erected for the
guests to assemble for the engagement ceremony, which was over by then.
They damaged the tent using foul language. They assaulted one Satinder
Singh, a relative of the complainant and Santosh Singh. They smashed the
windscreen of the car belonging to Trilok Singh. We highlight that the FIR
is registered on the day of the incident itself i.e. February 04, 1998.
8. Santosh Singh PW-2 deposed in similar language at the 4 inquiry
proceedings and we note that he did not name the petitioners but confirmed
that an incident (as per the two charges and as elaborated in the statement of
imputation took place), in that, he deposed that 4 CISF Jawans had created
trouble at the engagement ceremony of his son. In the inquiry proceedings
against Angrej Singh and Bachitter Singh he stated that he knew all four and
they used to visit his house. But, in the inquiry proceedings against the other
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 4 of 9
two petitioners he denied said fact.
9. Insp.K.C.Sharma PW-4 examined in the inquiry proceedings
pertaining to Angrej Singh and Insp.Vijay PW-4 examined in the three
inquiry proceedings against the other 3 petitioners deposed that the
respective petitioner was under their charge and that at the time of the
incident none of them was on duty.
10. HC Babu Lal Sharma PW-5, a Head Constable of CISF deposed that
on February 12, 1998 Santosh Singh had confirmed to him of the
involvement of the petitioners at the unfortunate incidents in his house.
11. The petitioners did not examine any witness in defence but took a
stand of denial. They denied having visited house of Santosh Singh. As per
them they did not know Santosh Singh. They denied having created any
ruckus as alleged.
12. In 4 near identically worded reports, the Inquiry Officer held that from
the fact established by the testimony of PW-4 was that the four delinquents
were not on duty and thus they could be present at the house of Santosh
Singh. Referring to the testimony of HC Babu Lal PW-5, the Inquiry Officer
has opined that the same established the involvement of the petitioners. With
reference to the FIR Ex.1 proved by PW-3, in the four inquiry reports the
Inquiry Officer highlighted the fact that not only the incident but even names
of the petitioners were recorded therein. The Inquiry Officer has thereafter
highlighted that all petitioners were Punjabis and so were the complainant
and Santosh Singh, from which an inference of comradeship has been
inferred.
13. Taking a serious view of the incident the Disciplinary Authority levied
penalty of dismissal from service which was been upheld by the Appellate
Authority as also by the Revisional Authority.
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 5 of 9
14. We note that before the Revisional Authority decided the revisions, the
petitioners were acquitted at the criminal trial because of the fact that Trilok
Singh and another eye witness relative turned hostile. Santosh Singh was not
examined.
15. The first contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the
second Article of Charge cannot be an indictment for the reason merely
alleging that the delinquent is an accused in an FIR is no indictment.
16. We agree. To allege against somebody that he/she is named as an
accused in an FIR is worthless. The indictment at a domestic inquiry has to
be with reference to the acts of omission or commission alleged as wrongs.
17. But it takes the petitioners nowhere. If Article 1 of the charge is
established, that would mean that the indictment was correct.
18. It is then urged that the Article 1 of the Charge Sheet is vague and that
the statement of imputation does not cure the defect.
19. We have reproduced hereinabove in para 3 the two Articles of Charge
and the accompanying statement of imputation.
20. We would only highlight that the statement of imputation pertaining to
Article 1 of the Charge only brings out the time and place of the occurrence
further informing that the wrong alleged was indulging in undesirable
behaviour. But the statement of imputation accompanying Article 2 of the
Charge gave the particulars of the acts committed and stated to be
constituting the wrong. Thus, on a meaningful reading of the statement of
imputations, notwithstanding that the statement of imputation giving the
details pertains to the second charge, it has to be held that the petitioners
were made aware of the acts attributed to them.
21. It is then urged that it is a case of no evidence for the reason Santosh
Singh PW-2 has not stated a word of the petitioners’ involvement. He has
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 6 of 9
only deposed to the incident. It is urged that as held in the decision reported
as (2009) 2 SCC 570 Roop Singh Negi Vs. PNB & Ors. , even at a domestic
inquiry the contents of an FIR, unless proved through the mouth of the author
thereof, i.e. the person making the complaint cannot be treated as proved.
22. From the facts noted hereinabove, even with respect to the truncated
testimony of Santosh Singh it stands proved that an incident of vandalism
took place in his house and the perpetrators were CISF Jawans. He does not
name them.
23. We then have the testimony of PW-3, the Police Station Incharge who
recorded the FIR and proved the same as Ex.1.
24. As already highlighted by us the FIR was registered on the statement
of Trilok Singh the same day when the incident took place. The incident
took place at 10:40 PM on February 04, 1998. The FIR has been registered
before the midnight evidenced by the fact that the date of the FIR is February
04, 1998. Unfortunately, the time when FIR was registered has not been
noted.
25. Statements made by a person to a third person soon after an incident,
but with no gap of time are akin to contemporaneous utterances and are
admissible as res gestae evidence through the deposition of the one who
heard the utterance. Statements made after some gap which cease to be res
gestae are hearsay evidence and thus inadmissible as per the law of evidence.
But, as held in the decision reported as (1977) 2 SCC 491 State of Haryana
& Anr. VS. Rattan Singh , at a domestic inquiry there is no allergy to hearsay
evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. In paragraph 4 it
was observed as under:-
“ It is well settled that in a domestic enquiry the strict and
sophisticated rules of evidence under the Indian Evidence Act
may not apply. All materials which are logically probative for a
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 7 of 9
prudent mind are permissible. There is no allergy to hearsay
evidence provided it has reasonable nexus and credibility. It is
true that departmental authorities and administrative tribunals
must be careful in evaluating such material and should not
glibly swallow what is strictly speaking not relevant under the
Indian Evidence Act. For this proposition it is not necessary to
cite decisions nor text books, although we have been taken
through case law and other authorities by counsel on both
sides. The essence of a judicial approach is objectivity,
exclusion of extraneous materials or considerations and
observance of rules of natural justice. Of course, fair play is the
basis and if perversity or arbitrariness, bias or surrender of
independence of judgment vitiate the conclusions reached, such
finding, even though of a domestic tribunal, cannot be held
good. However, the courts below mis-directed themselves,
perhaps, in insisting that passengers who had come in and gone
out should be chased and brought before the tribunal before a
valid finding could be recorded. The 'residuum' rule to which
counsel for the respondent referred, based upon certain
passengers from American jurisprudence does not go to that
extent nor does the passage from Halsbury insist on such rigid
requirement. The simple point is, was there some evidence or
was there no evidence not in the sense of the technical rules
governing regular court proceedings but in a fair common-
sense way as men of understanding and worldly wisdom will
accept. Viewed in this way, sufficiency of evidence in proof of
the finding by a domestic tribunal is beyond scrutiny. Absence
of any evidence in support of a ending is certainty available for
the court to look into because it amounts to an error of law
apparent on the record. We find, in this case, that the evidence
of Chamanlal, Inspector of the flying squad, is some evidence
which has relevance to the charge levelled against the
respondent. Therefore, we are unable to hold that the order is
invalid on that ground.”
26. It is true that in Roop Singh Negi ’s case, pertaining to a domestic
inquiry the contents of an FIR unless proved through the mouth of the maker
were held inadmissible. But on facts it has to be noted that the contents of
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 8 of 9
the FIR were not even in the nature of hearsay evidence. The FIR pertained
to a statement made by the Manager of the Bank that some drafts not issued
by the Branch were encashed.
27. Thus, we would be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in
Rattan Singh ’s case with respect to the testimony of PW-3 who registered the
FIR Ex.1 soon after the incident on the statement made by Trilok Singh.
28. We have already referred briefly to the contents of the FIR.
29. We hold that there is sufficient evidence against the petitioners.
30. We highlight that the petitioners were constables working with CISF
and the act of indiscipline shown by them are serious. They indulged in
hooliganism and physical violence.
31. It may be true that the petitioners were acquitted at the criminal trial
but the same was on account of witnesses turning hostile. It is trite that mere
acquittal at a criminal trial is no ground to set aside findings at a domestic
inquiry.
32. The writ petitions are dismissed but without any orders as to costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(JAYANT NATH)
JUDGE
JANUARY 08, 2014
mamta
W.P.(C) No.3538/2001 & conn.matters Page 9 of 9