Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 1757
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH
Ex.Hc/Dvr. Mahipal Singh
Versus
UOI & Others
WP(C). 2773 OF 1999
Decided on : 30-07-2012
For the Petitioner:H.K. Chaturvedi, with Ms. Anjali Chaturvedi, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Ms. Archana Gaur, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for an unbiased and analytically sound inquiry report in disciplinary proceedings, and the need for the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority to consider material contradictions and inconsistencies in witness depositions.
Headnote:
BIAS - DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS - [ARTICLE OF CHARGE – I, ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II, ARTICLE OF CHARGE – III, ARTICLE OF CHARGE – IV, ARTICLE OF CHARGE – V] - The court discussed the bias of the Inquiry Officer and the non-application of mind in the inquiry report. The court quashed the report due to material contradictions and a strong likelihood of bias. The penalty of removal from service and the rejection of the petitioner's appeal were set aside, and the petitioner was directed to be reinstated with 50% back-wages to be paid.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on September 10, 1998, which pertained to the petitioner's alleged gross indiscipline and misconduct while serving in the CISF Unit NPC, Kaiga. The petitioner raised concerns about the bias of the Inquiry Officer and the non-application of mind in the inquiry report.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the inquiry report suffered from a total non-application of mind and was the result of a patent illegality committed by ignoring material contradictions and not discussing them. The court also noted a strong likelihood of bias by the Inquiry Officer. The court quashed the report and set aside the penalty of removal from service and the rejection of the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated with 50% back-wages to be paid.
Issues: The issues included the bias of the Inquiry Officer, the non-application of mind in the inquiry report, and the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the depositions of the witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry report suffered from a total non-application of mind and a strong likelihood of bias by the Inquiry Officer. The court also emphasized the material contradictions, inconsistencies, and inchoateness in the depositions of the witnesses, which were not considered by the Disciplinary Authority or the Appellate Authority.
Final Decision: The court quashed the inquiry report, set aside the penalty of removal from service and the rejection of the petitioner's appeal, and directed the reinstatement of the petitioner with 50% back-wages to be paid.
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. During arguments on July 19, 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded that a most inartistically drafted writ petition has been filed, without any application of mind. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge most of the points projected in the writ petition. The absurdity in the pleadings and the non-application of mind by the counsel who filed the writ petition is evident from the fact that the counsel concerned, who appears to be having good contacts with jawans in Central Para Military Forces had been filing writ petitions which were a verbatim copy of each other, and in the instant case one instance of absurdity of the highest kind could be illustrated with respect to the fact that the writ petitioner is Ex.HC/DRV Mahipal Singh and not L/Nk.R.L.Meena. In the writ petition challenge is made to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on September 10, 1998, which pertains to L/Nk.R.L.Meena and not the petitioner.
1. 2. However, as agreed to between learned counsel for the parties, arguments were advanced with reference to the original record of inquiry, and in respect whereof only two contentions were urged at the hearing of the writ petition. The first contention was that the Inquiry Officer Asstt.Comdt. Kuldeep Kumar had a bias resulting in his overlooking material evidence and material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bias was on account of the fact that as per Article of Charge-V, it was alleged against the petitioner that at 08:30 hours on March 30, 1998 he had disobeyed the lawful command of Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar, the Inquiry Officer, by not appearing in the orderly room as directed by Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar. It was thus urged that Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar, being a complainant with respect to Article-V of the charge, was biased, in that, he had an interest to sustain the charge; come what may. It was urged that admittedly, petitioner had requested for change of Inquiry Officer, which request was rejected without a justifiable cause. The second contention urged was that as a consequence of the bias the Inquiry Officer ignored the testimony of Ct.(Cook) Inderpal Singh and during inquiry elicited a response from Inderpal Singh, which response was at total variance with the testimony of Inderpal Singh. Attacking the report of the Inquiry Officer it was urged that except for noting briefly the testimony of Inderpal Singh, no attempt was made to analyze the same. Taking the argument further, it was urged that the inchoate and disjunctive testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh was unnecessarily given due prominence, without analyzing the inherent contradictions, disjunctiveness and inchoateness in the testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh.
2. 3. We proceed with our discussion by reproducing the charge framed against the petitioner, having five article of charge. They read as under:-
“Annexure-I
STATEMENT OF ARTICLES OF CHARGE FRAMED AGAINST NO.881380017 HC/DVR MAHIPAL SINGH OF CISF UNIT NPC, KAIGA
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – I
Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh while functioning as HC/DVR at CISF Unit NPC, Kaiga, on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 beat
No.911380013 Cook Inderpal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga at about 22:30 hrs. in the Unit lines and in front of Quarter Guard and thereby causing him injuries. Hence, the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – II
Gross indiscipline and misconduct in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 by shouting and abusing, created nuisance and disturbed the peace of Sub-officers and Unit personnel in Unit lines and Quarter Guard for more than 02 hours between 22:30 and 01:00 hrs. Hence, the charge.
ARTICLE OF CHARGE – III
Gross indiscipline and insubordination in that No.881380017 HC/DVR Mahipal Singh of CISF Unit, NPC, Kaiga on the night of 29.3.98/30.3.98 at about 01:30 hrs. when taken to NPC
