Back
HIGH COURT OF PATNA (RANCHI HENCH)
S. B. Sinha, J.
K.R.S. Naddar - Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case. No. 673 of 1987 (R)
Decided On : 13.9.1991
CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ACCEPTANCE OF ILLEGAL GRATIFICATION - EVIDENCE - INTERPRETATION OF RULES - JURISDICTION OF REVISIONAL AUTHORITY - WRIT OF CERTIORARI.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Naik in the Central Industrial Security Force, was charged with accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 330/- from a D.O. holder named Papoo. The petitioner claimed that he had merely handed over the money to a superior officer, S.I. Satpal Kumar, as requested by Papoo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no evidence to support the charge that the petitioner had accepted the money for his own benefit. The court also found that the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority had all erred in their findings of fact and law.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence supported the charge that the petitioner had accepted an illegal gratification. 2. Whether the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority had erred in their findings of fact and law.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that there was no evidence to support the charge that the petitioner had accepted the money for his own benefit. The court noted that the petitioner had handed over the money to a superior officer, S.I. Satpal Kumar, as requested by Papoo. 2. The court held that the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority had all erred in their findings of fact and law. The court found that the disciplinary authority had failed to consider relevant evidence and had relied on irrelevant evidence. The court also found that the appellate authority and the revisional authority had failed to consider the petitioner's defense and had failed to give him a reasonable opportunity to be heard.
Final Decision: The court quashed the impugned orders of the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority, and the revisional authority and issued a writ of certiorari.
S. B. Sinha. J.
In this application, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing of an order dated 29.4.1985 (3.5.1985) passed by respondent no. 4 and as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, an order dated 17th October, 1985 passed by respondent no.3 and as contained in Annexure 3 to the writ application, as also the order dated 6th/9th of March, 1987 passed by respondent no. 2 and as contained in Annexure-7 to the writ application.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. The petitioner admittedly at the relevant time was employed as a Naik of Central Industrial Security / Force and was posted at Dahibari.
4. A disciplinary proceeding was initiated against him for enquiring into an allegation that while on duty on 25.9.84 at Dahibari coal ump Check post Area No. XII, the petitioner accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 330/- other than legal remuneration from a D.O. holder namely Papoo in the presence of No. 7737121 constable Munshi Ram. The Articles of charge as against the petitioner reads as follows :
"He while on duty on 25.9.84 at Dahibari Coal Dump Check Post of Area No. XII accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.330/- other than legal remuneration from a D.O. holder named Papoo in presence of No. 7737129 Constable Munshi Ram."
5. The case of the petitioner appears to be that the aforementioned amount of Rs.330/- was given to one Satpal Kumar, Sub-Inspector as a loan by one papoo @ Anil Kumar Khanna and he was merely asked by the said Papoo to hand over the said amount to Sri Satpal Kumar which he did. Before the Enquiry Officer; the Department examined various witnesses including one Sri B. L. Durani, Assistant Commandant, S.I. Sukhbir Singh, S.I. Satpal Kumar and constable Munshi Ram as also the aforementioned Sri Anil Kumar Khanna @ Papoo.
6. The Enquiry Officer, upon analysis of -the evidence, held:-
"No. 7112320 Naik KRS Naddar is serving in CISF since 1971 for a long period of 14 years of service he should know from experience that the acceptance of money from civilian at check post is an act of gross indiscipline.
As per the statement of Shri Anil Kumar Khanna @ Papoo that he knew N.K. Naddar since last 4/5 years he must have been handing over illegal gratification since quite some time.
If the intention of the delinquent was clear he should have not taken the said money from civilian at the Check post and he should have informed the matter to his senior' officers which he failed to comply, thus it is seen that the delinquent has not taken any precautions or effective steps to intimate the competent authority for his acceptance of money from civilian check post."
7. Respondent no. 4 being the disciplinary authority by reason of the impugned order dated 29.4.1985/3.5.1985 as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, awarded the following punishment as against the petitioner:
"i. No. 7112302 Naik K.R.S. Naddar is awarded penalty of reduction of minimum pay scale of Rs. 225/- in the time scale of pay for a period of two vears with effect from the date of issue of order. It is further directed that he will not earn increments of pay during the period of reduction and that on expiry of this period, the reduction will not have the cited of postponing his future increments of pay.
ii. The period of his suspension w.e.f. 23.10.1984 to 2.4.1985 is confirmed and he shall not get anything more than what he has already received as subsistence allowance."
8. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the respondent no. 3 as against the said order. Respondent no. 3 by reason of the impugned order dated 17th October, 1985, dismissed the said appeal holding:
(a) the pica that the appellant was new to the area has been found to be false as the appellant had been known to the D.O. holder who offered the bribe money for the last 4-5 years;
(b) Undoubtedly, in the instant case, he passed on the entire amount of illegal gratification to S.I. Satpal Kumar and did not
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
