Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Krishna Rao, J.
Jagtar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Union Of India & Ors. - Respondents
WPA No. 414 of 2003
Decided On : 19-01-2023
CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - NATURAL JUSTICE - PRINCIPLES VIOLATED - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - ENQUIRY OFFICER - EVIDENCE - ADMISSIBILITY - CROSS-EXAMINATION - RIGHT TO - DENIAL - PUNISHMENT - SETTING ASIDE - CIRCUMSTANCES - DEPARTMENTAL ENQUIRY - JUDICIAL REVIEW - SCOPE OF.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioner, a Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), was charged with consumption of liquor and negligence leading to a round being fired from his rifle, resulting in his own injury. An inquiry was conducted, and the Disciplinary Authority found him guilty of the second charge and imposed the punishment of removal from service. The Appellate Authority upheld the order. The petitioner challenged the orders on the grounds of violation of natural justice principles, particularly the denial of an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose evidence was relied upon by the authorities.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Disciplinary Authority had violated the principles of natural justice by not providing the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine the witness, whose evidence was relied upon to prove the charge against him. The Court also found that the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was shocking to its conscience.
Issues: 1. Whether the Disciplinary Authority violated the principles of natural justice by denying the petitioner an opportunity to cross-examine a witness whose evidence was relied upon to prove the charge against him? 2. Whether the punishment imposed upon the petitioner was shocking to the conscience of the Court?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court relied on the principles of natural justice, which require that a person facing disciplinary proceedings should be given a fair opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine witnesses whose evidence is used against him. 2. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments that have held that judicial review of disciplinary proceedings is limited to examining whether the proceedings were conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and statutory rules, and whether the findings were based on evidence.
Final Decision: The Court set aside and quashed the orders passed by the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The case was remanded to the Disciplinary Authority for reconsideration without considering the evidence of the witness whose cross-examination was denied to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority was directed to complete the proceedings within eight weeks.
JUDGMENT
Krishna Rao, J. - In the present writ application, the writ petitioner has challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dt. 20th August, 1999 wherein punishment of removal from service is awarded and the order passed by the Appellate Authority dt. 22nd April, 2000 wherein the Appellate Authority has rejected the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the order passed by the disciplinary authority.
2. The petitioner was working as Constable in the Central Industrial Security Force (herein after referred as 'CISF') and was posted at 12th Reserve Battalion, Farakka and was required to perform his duty at North Eastern States of Assam, Nagaland and Tripura etc.
3. On 3rd March, 1999, the Disciplinary Authority of the petitioner had issued Charge Memorandum against the petitioner on the allegation that when the petitioner was on duty from 21:00 hours in the night of 27th March, 1998 till 01:00 hours on 28th March, 1998, the petitioner had consumed liquor and due to his negligence when he was on duty at 21:05 hours one round has been fired from his Butt No. 31, Regd. No. 16142970 S.L.R due to which the petitioner himself suffered serious injury on his face.
4. On receipt of the charge memo, the petitioner had submitted his written statement of defense by denying the charges leveled against the petitioner, accordingly, the Disciplinary Authority had appointed Enquiry Officer for regular inquiry. During enquiry altogether four witnesses were examined to prove the charges leveled against the petitioner. On completion of inquiry, it was find that the first charge with regard to the consumption of liquor was not proved but the second charge was proved, the Disciplinary Authority had passed the order of removal of the petitioner from service which was subsequently upheld by the appellate authority.
5. Mr. K.B.S Mahapatra along with his assisting advocates representing the petitioner submits that as per charge memo, two charges were leveled against the petitioner and both the charges were interlinked and if one of the charges is not proved, it cannot be said that the second charge is proved.
6. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the Enquiry Officer as well as both the authorities i.e. Disciplinary Authority and Appellate Authority have not considered the evidence on record and have wrongly come to the conclusion that the second charge is proved.
7. Mr. Mahapatra submits that incident of firing of one round from the Butt of the petitioner was an accidental but the authorities have wrongly considered as misconduct on the part of the petitioner.
8. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the Enquiry Officer and both the authorities have relied upon the evidence of one Shri P.K. Saha who is alleged to be a trained Armourer as an expert but the petitioner was not given an opportunity to cross examine the said witnesses and have also not supply the copy of statement of the said witness.
9. Mr. Mahapatra submits that there are sufficient evidence on record to show that the due to rainy weather the road was slippery as road was kutcha road and no torch was issued and at the place of incident mark of slippery of the foot near ditch was found.
10. Mr. Mahapatra submits that during the examination of the petitioner as Charge Officer by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner has clarified that 'there was order to alert always and do act as per situation and to fire as reply against any fire of any militants, but there is no particular order to be cocked the SLR always. It was night time hence SLR was cocked since verbal order was there during night time'.
11. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the petitioner also clarified during his examination that 'there may be a reason as the charge lever of safety clutch of his SLR position changed from S to R by rubbing with my uniform or push by my body pressure of hand or etc.'
12. Mr. Mahapatra submits that the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority have wrongly come to conclusion about the misconduct of the peti
In disciplinary proceedings, the principles of natural justice require that the person facing the charges should be given a fair opportunity to defend himself, including the right to cross-examine wi....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the court's role in disciplinary proceedings is limited to ensuring fair treatment and compliance with natural justice. The judgment also emph....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
The High Court will not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in departmental enquiry proceedings except in a case of mala fides or perversity. The quantum of punishment in disciplinary matt....
Disciplinary authority's findings must be based on evidence; failure to adhere to natural justice principles renders proceedings void.
The court emphasized the importance of maintaining discipline in an armed force and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision based on the evidence presented during the proceedings.
The court emphasized the importance of adhering to procedural fairness in conducting inquiries and highlighted that the proportionality of punishment should be considered in light of the seriousness ....
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
