Back
2024 Supreme(Del) 444
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Sachdeva, Manoj Jain, JJ.
Ex. Navik. Ck. Santosh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
Union of India & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) 19142 of 2006
Decided On : 28-02-2024
Mr. Akshit Sachdeva, Advocate, for the Petitioner.
Ms. Pratima N Lakra, CGSC with Ms. Vanya Bajaj, Advocate for UOI with Deputy Commandant Rattan Negi.
IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment emphasizes the importance of adherence to statutory provisions, fair trial, and procedural rules in disciplinary proceedings within the armed forces.
Headnote:
Dismissal - Coast Guard Act - 34(a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought setting aside of his dismissal order and the rejection of his request for reinstatement. He claimed innocence and argued that the alleged victim had exonerated and pardoned him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had committed theft and was dismissed from service as per the laid down procedure. The court also noted the petitioner's admission of guilt and the evidence presented against him.
Issues: Violation of principles of Natural Justice, procedural irregularities, and the petitioner's claim of innocence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized adherence to the relevant statutory provisions and the need for fair trial, while also highlighting the specific rules and procedures under the Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules, 1983. The court concluded that there was no violation of principles of Natural Justice and the dismissal was justified based on the evidence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the dismissal of the petitioner from service.
JUDGMENT
Manoj Jain, J.
1. Petitioner seeks setting aside of his dismissal order dated 20.12.2005 as well as order dated 15.06.2006 whereby the Appellate Authority has rejected his request for reinstatement.
2. Petitioner joined as Navik (Domestic Branch) in Coast Guard on 17.09.2004. During October, 2005, he was posted at Indian Navy Ship - Hamla. One Sh. Keloth J Joseph, a Keralite was his instructor who was inimical to him. However, the petitioner had brotherly relationship with another Keralite i.e. trainee S. Sujith, Navik (Cook).
3. According to petitioner, his instructor cooked up a plan to teach him a lesson.
4. News was spread that ATM Card of Sh. S. Sujith had been stolen by the Petitioner and he had misused the same and withdrawn money using said ATM card. His instructor took him to the Commanding Officer of the Ship and was forced to make admission.
5. According to petitioner, Sh. S. Sujith had himself handed over his ATM Card to him for withdrawing a sum of Rs. 3,000/- and also shared its ATM PIN with him. Petitioner, accordingly, withdrew the money for him who even got back his ATM Card as well as the amount withdrawn thereunder.
6. Petitioner claims that there was never any disciplinary proceeding or any kind of court-martial proceedings against him. He was neither informed of any charge against him nor provided with any document. Coast Guard Authorities did not subject to him any disciplinary proceedings except that he was forced to sign on some blank papers. He does not even know as to what was the material against him and he was never given any opportunity to cross-examine anyone at any stage. He was, eventually, served with order dated 20.12.2005 of dismissal from Coast Guard.
7. According to petitioner, his friend Sh. S. Sujith informed him that he had rather given a statement that it was their personal matter which they had settled mutually and that he had no complaint against the petitioner, as he had pardoned him.
8. Thus, according to petitioner, he was dismissed from service despite the fact that he had not committed any misconduct or offence. It is also supplemented by him that the alleged victim had, even otherwise, exonerated and pardoned him. Petitioner has also placed reliance upon Ravinder Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2002 SCC OnLine Del 205, Ex. Head Constable Moti Singh Vs. UOI & Ors., 2017 SCC OnLine Del 7523, Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank & Others, (2009) 2 SCC 570, Mahavir Singh Vs. Union of India & Others, (2002) 62 DRJ 875, Union of India Vs. R. Anand, 2011 SCC OnLine Mad 945, Shri R.S. Singh Vs. Union of India & Ors., 2001 SCC OnLine Cal 728
9. It is in the aforesaid premise that he has prayed that his dismissal order may be set aside.
10. According to respondents, petitioner had stolen ATM Card of Sh. S. Sujith on 03.09.2005 and withdrew a sum of Rs. 3,000/- from ATM and thereby committed offence of theft in terms of Section 34 (a) of the Coast Guard Act, 1978. Such theft came to light on 09.09.2005 when S. Sujith learnt about debit of amount from his bank. He then announced in the mess/canteen that guilty would be caught as there was a camera installed in the ATM. On hearing the same, petitioner became frightened and returned the amount to him same day i.e. on 09.09.2005 which clearly indicates his complicity in the matter.
11. According to respondents, petitioner was produced before the Executive Officer in terms of procedure laid down under Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules 1983, who, after hearing the charge, initiated the procedure as prescribed in Rule 19(2)(C) of Coast Guard (Discipline) Rules 1983 and referred the matter to the Commanding Officer. When petitioner was produced before the Commanding Officer, he again pleaded guilty to the charge. However, the Commanding Officer remanded the petitioner for preparation of Abstract of Evidence. The Commanding Officer considered the Abstract of Evidence and after going through the same and hearing the petitioner, who admitted his com
