SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2010 Supreme(HP) 856

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Hon'ble Judges: V.K. Sharma, J.
Smt. Urmil Mahajan and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Union of India (UOI) and Ors. – Respondent
C.W.P. No. 966 of 2000
Decided On: 30.06.2010

The main legal point established is the requirement for independence and impartiality in departmental inquiries, the unfairness of simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings based on the same set of facts, and the importance of supplying relevant documents and witness statements for a fair defense.

Headnote:

Illegal Gratification - Departmental Inquiry - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (Section 7, 13(1)(a), 13(2)) - The court quashed the inquiry report, penalty of dismissal from service, appellate order, and revisionary order. Directed the respondents to grant consequential benefits and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

Fact of the Case:

The petitioner, a Superintendent-cum-Accountant, was alleged to have demanded illegal gratification from a colleague for releasing gratuity. He was caught red-handed and faced criminal and departmental proceedings. The criminal case resulted in acquittal, and the petitioner filed a petition challenging the departmental proceedings.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the inquiry against the petitioner lacked independence and impartiality due to the involvement of biased witnesses. It also noted non-supply of relevant documents and delayed supply of witness statements, causing prejudice to the petitioner's defense. The court concluded that the petitioner's misconduct was not proven, quashing the inquiry report and setting aside the penalty of dismissal.

Issues: The issues included lack of independence in the inquiry, simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings, non-supply of relevant documents, and prejudice caused to the petitioner's defense.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the inquiry lacked independence and impartiality, and the simultaneous criminal and departmental proceedings based on the same set of facts were unfair. It also emphasized the importance of supplying relevant documents and witness statements to ensure a fair defense.

Final Decision: The court quashed the inquiry report, penalty of dismissal from service, appellate order, and revisionary order. It directed the respondents to grant consequential benefits and pensionary benefits to the petitioner.

JUDGMENT

V.K. Sharma, J.

1. The present petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, was filed by the original Petitioner (in short 'the Petitioner') late Shri K.K. Mahajan, who is survived by his legal representatives Smt. Urmil Mahajan and others mentioned in the amended memo of parties, for grant of the following substantive reliefs as at Sr. Nos. (i) to (vi) of the prayer clause:

(i) That the order dated 14.11.1995 (Annexure P-13) i.e. the order of imposing of penalty of dismissal from service, may be quashed and set aside.

(ii) That the appellate order dated 12.8.1996 (Annexure P-15) may be quashed and set aside.

(iii) That the revisionary order dated 9.10.2000 (Annexure P-17) may be quashed and set aside.

(iv) That the inquiry report dated 1.11.95 (Annexure P-11) may be quashed and set aside being arrived at without following the principles of law.

(v) That the Respondents may be directed that the Petitioner may be granted all consequential benefits from the date of imposition of penalty till date of final payment.

(vi) That the Respondents may be directed to grant pensionary benefits to the Petitioner from the date of his retirement from active service.

2. Brief facts of the case may be stated thus. At the relevant time, that is, on or about 11.2.1994, the Petitioner was working as Superintendent-cum-Accountant in the office of Cantonment Board, Dagshai. At the same time, one Surjeet Singh, was also working in that office as 'Daftri'. One Shri Palak Ram father of Deepti Kumar, a Gardener in the Cantonment Board, Dagshai, had died during harness. A sum of Rs. 4,597/- was sanctioned as gratuity in respect of said Shri Palak Ram to be paid to the said Deepti Kumar. On 11.2.1994, the Petitioner handed over a cheque in the sum of Rs. 1656/- to Deepti Kumar towards part payment of the gratuity amount. It is alleged that the Petitioner demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 750/- from Deepti Kumar for the release of balance amount of gratuity. However, since Deepti Kumar, who shall here-in-after be called as 'the complainant' did not want to oblige the Petitioner, the matter was reported to the Anti Corruption Unit, Solan. Consequently, a trap was laid, during which the Petitioner was allegedly caught red handed while accepting illegal gratification of Rs. 750/- from the complainant. After receiving the tainted money and counting the same, the Petitioner is alleged to have handed it over to the aforementioned Surjeet Singh, Daftri, who shall here-in-after be referred to as 'co-accused' saying that he would take it back from him in the evening after office hours and the latter kept the same in his pocket. On receiving the secret signal from the shadow witness, namely, Chet Ram, the raiding party headed by Dy. S.P. Jasbir Singh, arrived at the scene and a sum of Rs. 750/- in the form of currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder was recovered from the pocket of the co-accused and taken into possession by the police. Accordingly, a case under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(a) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'P.C. Act'), was registered against the Petitioner and his co-accused, vide F.I.R No. 1 of 1994, dated 11.2.1994, at Police Station A.C. Zone, Solan. On completion of investigation they were sent up for trial to the court of the learned Special Judge, Solan, H.P. 3. However, in the meantime, disciplinary proceedings were also initiated against the Petitioner vide charge-sheet dated 31st May, 1994, Annexure P-4, on the following article of charge:

ARTICLE I

That the said Shri K.K. Mahajan while functioning as Office Supdt cum-Accountant (Supernumerary) in Cantt. Board Dagshai misconducted and committed an offence relating to accepting illegal gratification on 11.2.1994 from Shri Deputy Kumar Mali, Cantt. Board, Dagshai of Rs. 750/- in consideration for releasing the gratuity of his deceased father, Shri Palak Ram, an ex-employee of Cantt. Board, Dagshai as per official report of



















































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top