Back
2014 Supreme(Del) 810
High Court of Delhi
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT NATH
Raj Vir Singh Mann
Versus
UOI & Others
W.P.(C) No. 1522 of 2003
Decided On : 12-03-2014
For the Petitioner:Meenal Kashyap, B.A. Jadon, Advocates.
For the Respondents:Richa Kapoor, Saahila Lamba, Advocates for UOI.
The probative value of evidence in a domestic enquiry is sufficient to decide whether a charge is proved or not.
Headnote:
Extortion - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 - [1977) 2 SCC 491 State of Haryana & Anr. Vs. Rattan Singh] - The court discussed the duty roster, flight chart, computer printout, embarkation card, and seizure memo as evidence. The court emphasized the probative value of evidence in a domestic enquiry.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a CISF officer, was accused of extorting money from a traveler at the airport. The complainant and a key witness did not appear in the enquiry proceedings. The disciplinary authority found the charge proved and imposed the penalty of removal from service.
Finding of the Court:
The court dismissed the writ petition, emphasizing the probative value of evidence in a domestic enquiry.
Issues: Non-appearance of key witnesses, discrepancy in dates of complaint and seizure memo, and delay in supplying documents to the petitioner.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the probative value of evidence in a domestic enquiry and upheld the disciplinary authority's decision.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed without any order as to costs.
Pradeep Nandrajog, J.
1. The facts leading to filing of the present petition are that on September 23, 1987, the petitioner was appointed in CISF on the post of SI/Executive. In the month of March 1995 the petitioner was sent on deputation to the Intelligence Bureau where he was working on the post of ACIO-II/G at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New Delhi.
2. On March 23, 1996, one Ms.Dipannita Bose made a complaint to the Assistant Commissioner of Police, IGI Airport, New Delhi that on March 23, 1996, she was travelling to Hongkong; the officer present at the Immigration Counter harassed her by saying that the photograph on her passport is not hers and the officer demanded Rs.800/- for granting immigration clearance to her; which sum she paid.
3. On receipt of aforesaid complaint, Sudesh Kumar ACP, Inspector Sukesh Singh, Constable Jagjit Singh and the complainant Dipannita Bose went to the immigration counter to identify the immigration officer who had extorted the money from the complainant. On reaching there i.e. immigration counter, the complainant identified the petitioner as the officer who had extorted money from her. At the first instance, the petitioner denied having taken any money from the complainant but subsequently on being persuaded by I/c Wing A.K.S.Teotia he returned the sum of Rs.800/-, which sum was seized by ACP Sudesh Kumar.
4. Thereafter on December 05, 1996 a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner framing a charge against him to the effect that on the intervening night of March 22/23, 1996 he had extorted a sum of Rs.800/- from Ms.Dipannita Bose. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted a reply dated December 20, 1996 wherein he denied the allegations leveled against him.
5. On consideration of the aforesaid reply submitted by the petitioner, on March 04, 1997 the Assistant Director, IB appointed an Enquiry Officer to enquire into the charge framed against the petitioner.
6. On June 11, 1997 the petitioner was supplied the listed documents and thus commenced the enquiry. On June 13, 1997 the Enquiry Officer issued notices to the departmental witnesses including complainant Dipannita Bose for recording of their statements on July 04, 1997. In response thereto, complainant Dipnannita Bose sent a letter dated July 01, 1997 to the Enquiry Officer wherein she expressed her inability to give her statement in the matter as she is based in Mumbai. Thereafter on July 13, 1997 the Enquiry Officer wrote a letter to complainant Dipannita Bose requesting her to participate in the departmental enquiry and that TA/DAshall be released for her for said purpose. When Dipannita Bose did not turn up before him on August 26, 1997 the Enquiry Officer issued another notice to her but in vain. Yet again on September 25, 1997 the Enquiry Officer issued another notice to the complainant for her appearance in the enquiry proceedings but to no avail. In that view of the matter, complainant Dipannita Bose could not be examined in the enquiry proceedings.
7. During the enquiry proceedings, the department examined 3 witnesses in the first instance viz. Inspector Sukesh Singh PW-3, Const. Jagjit Singh PW-4 and A.K.S.Teotia, ACIO-I (G), PW-5.
8. Inspector Sukesh Singh PW-3, stated that on the intervening night of March 22/23, 1996 he was looking after departure Gate No.3 at IGI Airport when at about 11.15 P.M. a lady who told her name Ms.Dipannita Bose came at Gate No.3. She was weeping and told him that a person at the immigration had taken money from her. He took her to ACP Sudesh Kumar who accompanied by Ct.Jagjit Singh, the complainant and he i.e. Inspector Sukesh Singh went to the immigration counter where the complainant identified the petitioner as the officer who had extorted money from her. On being asked by ACP Sudesh Kumar the petitioner took out a sum of Rs.800/- from his pocket and handed over the same to ACP Sudesh Kumar. The aforesaid sum was seized vide a seizure memo which bears his signatures. Pertinent
