Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4410 OF 2012
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
SURESH KUMAR SINGH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
B.R. GAVAI, J.
th
1. The appeal challenges the order dated 14 March 2011 passed by
the learned Division Bench of the High Court at Patna, thereby
dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants, which was in
turn filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of
th
the said High Court dated 28 January 2010, thereby allowing the
writ application filed by the respondent.
2. The departmental proceedings were initiated against the
respondent on the basis of charges communicated to him in the office
th
order dated 11 October 1999. The allegation was that the appellant
allegedly asserted political pressure for cancellation of his transfer
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
Indu Marwah
Date: 2022.06.07
10:20:44 IST
Reason:
order and thereby committed misconduct under Section 11 (1) of CRPF
1
Act, 1949.
3.
It was further alleged that the respondent along with another
Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari made a telephone call to the Senior
CRPF Officers and Additional DIGP, Mokamaghat impersonating
himself as a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha for getting the transfer
order cancelled.
4. In the departmental proceedings, the respondent was found
guilty and was awarded the punishment of removal from service. The
respondent challenged the same before the Appellate Authoritythe
Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna in an appeal. The
Appellate Authority found that the departmental proceedings were not
conducted in accordance with the laid down procedure and as such,
remitted the same to the original authorityOffice of Commandant 133
BN, CRPF, Patna for conducting the proceedings denovo. In the
denovo proceedings also, the respondent was found guilty. Challenging
the same, another appeal came to be filed, which was partly allowed
on 10.01.2003.
5. The Appellate Authority found that the Enquiry Committee had
not recorded the statement of the then Additional DIGP, Mokamaghat,
Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari and the owner of the S.T.D booth
Ram Tola, which were very relevant for the case. The Appellate
2
Authority therefore modified the punishment of removal from service
and the respondent was awarded 28 days confinement to Quarter
Guard with forfeiture of pay and allowances. The intervening period
from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement was
directed to be treated as extraordinary leave. The respondent
challenged the same by way of a revision before the Revisional
Authority and the same was also dismissed.
6. The respondent, thereafter, preferred the petition before the
learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge
specifically referred to paragraph 4 of the order of the Appellate
th
Authority dated 10 January 2003 and found a serious lacuna that
the most vital witnesses, that is, the Additional DIGP, the owner of the
STD booth Ram Tola and the Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari were
not examined. The learned Single Judge has set aside the penalty
imposed on the respondent and directed that the respondent would be
paid entire arrears of salary with consequential benefits with effect
from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement.
7. The appellants challenged the same before the learned Division
Bench, which also found that the case was of no evidence and
approved the findings as recorded by the learned Single Judge.
Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed.
3
8. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the Union of India, submits that the learned Single Judge of the
High Court as well as the Division Bench are not justified in
interfering with the departmental proceedings and specifically in the
penalty as imposed. They rely on the judgment in State of Rajasthan
1
, to buttress his submission that
and Others v. Sujata Malhotra
unless the High Court found a lacuna in the departmental
proceedings, the interference with penalty was not warranted.
9. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent submits that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of
the High Court as well as the Division Bench are in accordance with
law and no interference was warranted.
10.
The perusal of the record would clearly reveal that an opportunity
was given by the Appellate Authority to the Enquiry Committee to
examine the important witnesses. Even on remand, the said three
witnesses were not examined.
11. In the absence of the examination of these three vital witnesses,
the Appellate Authority found that the charges against the respondent
were not fully proved and taking into consideration this aspect, the
learned Single Judge allowed the petition and the Division Bench
1 (2003) 9 SCC 286
4
affirmed the same.
12.
Insofar as the judgment of this Court relied on by the learned
counsel appearing for the appellants is concerned, the same is not
applicable to the facts of the present case. The present case has a
specific finding that there is a serious lacuna in the conduct of the
departmental proceedings in not examining the vital witnesses.
13. We, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is
dismissed. However, no order as to costs.
14.
Taking into consideration that the respondent is deprived of the
benefits to which he is entitled to in law for a period of more than one
decade, we direct the appellants to clear all dues within a period of
three months from today.
15. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of in the
above terms.
.........................J.
(B.R. GAVAI)
…......................J.
New Delhi; (HIMA KOHLI)
June 01, 2022.
5
ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Civil Appeal No.4410/2012
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)
VERSUS
SURESH KUMAR SINGH Respondent(s)
Date : 01-06-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI
(Vacation Bench)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv.
Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR
For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR
Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv.
Dr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable
judgment.
Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUSHI SUNEJA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)
SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)
(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.)
6