Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
V. Kameswar Rao, Saurabh Banerjee, JJ.
Krishna Dixit (Nvk Wtr) - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 1113 of 2019
Decided On : 08-02-2024
Mr. Ajit Kakkar, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Ripu Daman Bhardwaj, CGSC with Mr. Kushagra Kumar and Mr. Abhinav Bhardwaj, Advocates, for the Respondents.
IMPORTANT POINT
Unauthorized absence without leave and involvement in alleged offenses can lead to disciplinary action under the ICG Act. Time-barred petitions may lack merit.
Headnote:
ICG Act - Absence Without Leave - Section 26/33(c) - Summary Trial - Section 119 - Union of India vs R. Anand 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 945 - State of Punjab vs Gurdial Singh & Ors., 1980 AIR 319
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, an enrolled Navik in the Indian Coast Guard, sought relief from the court against punishments imposed on him for absence without leave and stealing the Ship's Imprest Accounts Register. He claimed to have been falsely implicated and sought quashing of the punishments and recovery of pay, among other reliefs.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had left the Ship without authorization and that the allegations against him were substantiated. It also noted that the petition under Section 119 of the ICG Act was time-barred and legally untenable. The court did not find any fault on the part of the respondents and dismissed the petition.
Issues: Falsely implicated, absence without leave, stealing Ship's Imprest Accounts Register, recovery of pay, biased conduct of proceedings
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's unauthorized absence and involvement in the alleged offenses were established. The court also found the petition under Section 119 of the ICG Act to be time-barred and lacking merit. Lack of evidence of bias or malafide on the part of the respondents was noted.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, leaving the parties to bear their respective costs.
JUDGMENT
Saurabh Banerjee, J.
1. As per facts involved, the petitioner after his enrolment as a Navik in the Indian Coast Guard (hereinafter referred to as "ICG") in the year 2014 completed the training and was posted to ICGS Amogh at Paradip, Odisha. The petitioner claims to have proceeded on Earned Leave (E/L) from 21.10.2016 to 15.11.2016 after due recommendation by the Commanding Officer. However, on 28.10.2016, i.e. within a few days of his leave, first a 'run signal' was raised against the petitioner and then upon his return to the Ship on 15.11.2016, all his personal items were confiscated. In fact, the respondents depicted his return as a 'surrender' in their official record.
2. Thereafter, a Record of Evidence (hereinafter referred to as "RoE") was conducted against the petitioner under Section(s) 26/33(c) of the Indian Coast Guard Act, 1978 (hereinafter referred to as "ICG Act") for Absence Without Leave as also for stealing the Ship's Imprest Accounts Register (hereinafter referred to as "IAR") and eventually losing it. After that, in a Summary Trial conducted against the petitioner, vide order dated 24.11.2016, a punishment warrant was issued whereby he was awarded a punishment of 90 days Close Custody/ Detention in Quarters (DQ), 60 days mulcts of pay and 60 days stoppage of leave. As a result, the petitioner was detained at ICGS Kunjali at Mumbai, Maharashtra till his release on 08.03.2017. Subsequently, vide letter dated 16.10.2017, the petitioner was informed by the PCDA (Navy) that a recovery of pay and allowance amounting to Rs.1,27,974/- for the period from 09.12.2016 to 07.05.2017 was made from his account.
3. Thereafter, the petitioner on 13.11.2017 filed a petition under Section 119 of the ICG Act before the Director General, Indian Coast Guard. Having not received any response from the respondents, the petitioner filed the present petition under Article 226 of The Constitution of India seeking the following reliefs:
(a) To issue writ of mandamus for quashing the summary trial and punishment warrant and for setting aside the punishments awarded to the petitioner.
(b) To direct the respondents to dispose of the petition dated 13.11.2017 of the petitioner under Section 119 of Indian Coast Guard Act, 1978 pending with the respondents.
(c) To direct the respondents to repay the illegal recovery of Rs.1,27,974/- made from the account of the petitioner and issue an order or direction for granting proper compensation to the Petitioner for undergoing 90 days illegal detention, 60 days mulcts of pay charged and 60 stoppage on leave.
(d) Issue directions to the respondents to bring on record, all proceedings, all documents and evidences produced against the Petitioner at the time of Charge Trial, Record of Evidence and Summary Trial.
4. In view of the aforestated facts, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks to urge that the petitioner has been falsely implicated by the respondents and he could not have possibly committed the offence(s) he was charged with since the respondents. own Nominal Leave Record of the enrolled personnel revealed that the petitioner was in fact 'On Leave' and hence could not have possibly stolen the IAR. He thus urges that the charge against the petitioner as regards stealing the IAR is baseless since it contained an entry dated 27.10.2016, which was made at the time when the petitioner was on leave and hence was not physically present on the Ship. It is his case that as the said entry was signed by the Commandant (JG), Logistics Officer for the 'Commanding Officer', the officials of the Ship were in knowledge of this entry and hence have falsely implicated and charged the petitioner with stealing the IAR and ultimately losing it. He then urges that the RoE against the petitioner itself was conducted in a biased manner based on immaterial grounds.
5. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance upon Union of India vs R. Anand 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 945, wherein a Div
