Back
2017 Supreme(Del) 3912
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
SANJIV KHANNA, NAVIN CHAWLA, JJ.
JAGDISH LOHRA - Petitioner
Versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS - Respondents
W.P.(C) 631 OF 2014
Decided On : 03-11- 2017
For the Petitioner: Mr. Madan Gera, Adv.
For the Respondents: Mr.Vikas Mahajan, CGSC with Mr.S.S.Rai, Adv. with Mr.Naaveen Bhagat, DC-CISF, Mr.Devik Singh with Mr.Naresh Kaushik, Advs.
The sufficiency of evidence in disciplinary proceedings and the scope of judicial review.
Headnote:
UPSC - Disciplinary Proceedings - CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Article-I, Article-II, Article-III - Rule 3(1)(iii) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - [Article-I, Article-II, Article-III] - The court discussed the charges against the petitioner under Article-I, Article-II, and Article-III of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. The court highlighted the duty deployment, supervisory control, and administrative and operational control as key legal provisions. The court's decision was influenced by the evidence presented and the principles of natural justice.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the reduction of pay and remarks/downgrading made in the Annual Performance Assessment Reports. The charges against the petitioner included gross misconduct, failure to supervise duty deployment, and failure to exercise effective supervisory control.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the charges against the petitioner were proved, and the penalty imposed was justified. The court rejected the petitioner's arguments regarding violation of principles of natural justice and the relevance of defence witnesses.
Issues: Violation of principles of natural justice, relevance of defence witnesses, and the finding of guilt in the disciplinary proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the scope of judicial review in disciplinary proceedings, the sufficiency of evidence, and the principles of natural justice. The court held that the finding of guilt was not perverse and the punishment awarded was not disproportionate.
Final Decision: The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
NAVIN CHAWLA, J.
1. The petitioner in the above petition, challenges before us the Advice letter dated 31.05.2013 issued by the Deputy Secretary, Union Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred as “UPSC” in short), New Delhi and the order dated 25.10.2013 passed by the Director General, Central Industrial Security Force (hereinafter referred as “CISF” in short), Ministry of Home Affairs, reducing the pay of the petitioner by two stages for a period of three years with further direction that he will not earn increment during the period of reduction and on expiry of such period, the reduction will have the effect of postponing the future increment of pay.
2. The petitioner further challenges the remarks/downgrading made in the Annual Performance Assessment Reports for the period 1st April, 2009 to 31st March, 2010 and 1st April, 2010 to 21st October, 2010. However, at the time of hearing, no submission was made by the learned counsel for the petitioner regarding the said challenge. We, therefore, in our judgment are not dealing with the same.
3. The petitioner was working as a Deputy Commandant, CISF. He was served with a memorandum bearing No. V-15014/16/2010/L&R/325 dated 15.03.2011, leveling the following charges against him:
“ ARTICLE-I
That Shri Jagdish Lohra, Deputy Commandant, while posted at CISF unit, DMRC Delhi from 02.03.2007 to 31.12.2010 committed a gross misconduct in that he used to frequently visit the rented accommodation of his subordinate functionary namely Constable Suresh Chand and maintained undue closeness with him. This conduct of Shri Jagdish Lohra was detrimental to the functioning of a uniformed Forced because he was expected to maintain certain amount of command control over Constable Suresh Chand who was his subordinate functionary.
Thereby, Shri Jagdish Lohra, Deputy Commandant, contravened the provision of Rule 3(1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of his status in an Armed Force of the Union-CISF.
ARTICLE-II
That the said Shri Jagdish Lohra, while functioning in the aforesaid capacity during the aforesaid period committed gross misconduct in that he deployed Constable Suresh Chand for duties mostly in ‘B and C ’ Shift during the period from 01.01.2010 to 27.10.2010. He was not rotated as required and thereby Shri Jagdish Lohra, failed to supervise the duty deployment.
Thus Shri Jagdish Lohra failed to maintain absolute devotion to duty and acted in a manner unbecoming of an officer of his status in a Armed Force of the Union-CISF.
ARTICLE-III
Whereas on 27.07.2010 at about 2130 hrs the CIW personnel of the unit apprehended three miscreants taking out Copper Cable in Tata Ace vehicle (Regn. No. DL-ILM-6518) from Khyber Pass Depot of DMRC through gate No.2 in connivance with on duty Constable Suresh Chand and whereas shift I/C ASI/Exe Fakir Ram Pauri informed Shri Shri Jagdish Lohra, Deputy Commandant over phone about the incident, he did not give any proper directions to shift I/C and CIW to detain Constable Suresh Chand. As a result, Constable Suresh Chand ran away from the scene of crime and remained absent from duty for 35 days before surrendering to Delhi Police.
Shri Jagdish Lohra failed to exercise effective supervisory control over the functioning of his subordinates, as a result Constable Suresh Chand indulged in corrupt practices and connived with the miscreants enabling them to take away the Copper Cables from Khyber Pass Depot of DMRC Delhi on 27.07.2010.
Thus Shri Jagdish Lohra, Deputy Commandant, failed to exercise proper administrative and operational control during a time when proper instructions were required to be given to junior officials and thus acted in a manner unbecoming of a officer in an Armed Force of the Union.”
4. The petitioner submitted his written statement of defence dated 16.06.2011, denying the charges.
5. The Department examined six witnesses; one witness i.e. Girija Shankar was examined as court witness, where
