SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2003 Supreme(Pat) 786

PATNA HIGH COURT
S.Rajendra Babu and G.P.Mathur JJ.
Lt.Col.Nikhil Kumar
Versus
L.M.Vas
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 353 of 2001 ;
Civil Appeal No. 620 of 1998 ;
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 354 of 2001 ;
C.A. No. 5329 of 1996 ;
Decided On : JULY 31, 2003

In departmental proceedings, the charges are not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as in a criminal case.

Headnote:

Contempt - Ghaziabad Development Authority - The court dismissed the appeal for contempt proceedings against the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority due to lack of merit in the appeal.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner made complete payment for a plot in a scheme but did not receive possession as promised by the Ghaziabad Development Authority. The petitioner filed a compensation application before the MRTP Commission.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that there was no violation of the rule of natural justice as the appellant was allowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The evidence of two witnesses brought on the record was convincing and trustworthy, and the charges of indiscipline against the appellant were proved.

Issues: Violation of rule of natural justice, lack of possession of the plot as promised by the Authority, and the validity of the compensation application filed by the petitioner.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the proceeding would not vitiate even if the appellant was not allowed the opportunity to cross-examine a particular witness, as that witness was not directly related to the incident. The court also emphasized that the charges in departmental proceedings are not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as in a criminal case.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal for contempt proceedings against the Vice-Chairman of the Ghaziabad Development Authority, stating that there was no merit in the appeal.

Judgment

G.P.Mathur, J.

1. These petitions have been filed for initiating contempt proceedings against Smt. L. M. Vas, Vice-Chairman, Ghaziabad Development Authority, Ghaziabad. Lt. Col. Nikhil Kumar is son of Maj. Gen. Baldev Kumar and he claims to have executed a power of attorney in favour of his father, who has filed the affidavit in support of the petition. The controversy raised in both the petitions is identical and, therefore, they are being disposed of by a common order. For the sake of convenience, we will set out the facts of Contempt Petition No. 353 of 2001.

2. The facts pleaded in the Contempt Petition are as follows. The Ghaziabad Development Authority issued an advertisement in June 1989 for sale of plots in Indrapuram Scheme. It was mentioned in the brochure that the possession of the plots will be given in the year 1991. The petitioner made complete payment of Rs. 5,08,851/- between 29.7.1989 and 3.12.1992 as per the payment schedule stipulated by the Authority, but the possession of the plot was not delivered. The petitioner accordingly filed a compensation application on 13.9.1994 before the MRTP Commission. The MRTP Commission passed an order on 14.5.1997 directing office-cum-residence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police Sadar. At about 6 P.M. he was intoxicated. He took rifle of another constable and fired twice. Departmental proceeding was initiated and charges were framed with respect to indiscipline, doubtful character, insubordination and acts of unbecoming of police personnel etc. Copy of charge was furnished to the appellant. He filed show-cause. Thereafter, enquiry started. During course of enquiry three witnesses were examined. Those were Vijay Shankar Prasad, Babban Prasad and Ram Kirpal Singh, the Deputy Superintendent of Police conducted the preliminary enquiry. The enquiry officer submitted its report holding the appellant guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority dismissed the appellant from service. The appellant preferred appeal which was dismissed. He also filed memorial before the Director General of Police which was also dismissed. The appellant being aggrieved by those orders filed writ petition as indicated above. The writ petition was also dismissed. The said order has been impugned in this Letters Patent Appeal.

3. The contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that there is violation of rule of natural justice as he was not al- lowed to cross-examine the witnesses. The submission appears to be attractive but it has no leg to stand. It appears from the record produced by learned counsel for the respondents that Vijay Shankar Prasad and Babban Prasad were examined in presence of the appellant. The appellant also received copy of the depositions. It further appears that Ram Kirpal Singh was examined but there is no endorsement that appellant received copy of the deposition. At this stage it would not be out of place to mention herein that Ram Kirpal Singh is not witness to the incident. He held preliminary enquiry and found the incident true and accordingly referred the matter to the disciplinary authority who on the basis of said report initiated the proceeding. Even if it is accepted that appellant was not allowed opportunity to cross-examine Ram Kirpal Singh, in our opinion, the proceeding would not vitiate because ot the fact that he was not witness to the incident and also two material witnesses have fully supported the charges against the appellant. In the counter-affidavit specific averment was made that there was no violation of rule of natural justice. He was allowed to cross- examine the witnesses but he did not cross-examine the witnesses. The said averment was not denied by the appellant in his rejoinder. More-over, in the departmental proceeding the charges are not required to be proved beyond all reasonable doubts as required in criminal case. The evidence of two witnesses brought on the record is convincing and trustworthy. Therefore, their evidence can

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top