Back
2000 Supreme(J&K) 112
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR AT JAMMU
A.M. Mir,O.P. Sharma, JJ.
Union Of India - Appellant
Versus
Virender Singh Gill - Respondent
LPA (SWP) No. 276/1996
Decided On : 24 May, 2000
Advocate For Appellant: S. Bhat
Advocate For Respondent: M.K. Bhardwaj
The disciplinary authority's findings in a case of misconduct need not be established on the parameters of criminal law, and the court should not replace the findings unless there is a defect of jurisdiction, a violation of law, or absolutely no evidence.
Headnote:
No Evidence - Disciplinary Proceedings - Rule 3(1) of CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964 - Rule 37 of the Rules
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, an Assistant Commandant in C.R.P.F., was alleged to have removed valuables during a raid and was subsequently removed from service. The respondent challenged the decision in the writ court, claiming no evidence against him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent's defense was not convincing, and the charges against him were proved. The court criticized the writ court's judgment for finding fault with the inquiry report and the dismissal order, and concluded that the findings of the disciplinary authority were valid and in accordance with the law.
Issues: The main issues were whether the charges against the respondent were proved, and whether the disciplinary authority's findings were valid and in accordance with the law.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the disciplinary authority's findings were not perverse and were based on sufficient evidence, and that the judgment of the writ court was based on surmises and conjectures.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the writ petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been directed against a judgment of the writ court passed in SWP No. 518/95 on May 19. 1997 whereunder the inquiry proceedings initiated and Order No. D-IX-30/92-CRC dated 18-04-1995, passed against the respondent, have been set aside.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Respondent worked as Assistant Commandant in C.R.P.F. In August, 1991, he was posted as Incharge Special Task Force (STF) in 98 Bn. of the organisation at Srinagar, on 19-08-1991, having been ambushed by militants, on Raj Bagh Link Road, Srinagar, he alongwith his three member raiding party, broke open the house of one Smt. Naeema. While conducting the search of the house, respondent is alleged to have removed/caused to be removed, gold ornaments, cash and other valuables from the house. These items were later on recovered from an unused cistern of a toilet in one of the Rambagh™s barraks. Thus on his failure to maintain utmost integrity and exercise proper command and control, disciplinary action against the respondent was initiated in terms of Rule 3(1) under heads (I), (II) and (III) of the CCS (conduct) Rules of 1964, thereinafter referred to as the Rules). The investigating officer found that the charges against the respondent were proved, thus Memorandum No.4.F.4/I/93-Estt(CRPF) dated 26.4.1993 was issued by R-2 whereunder intention of the Central Government to hold an enquiry with respect to articles of charge was conveyed copy of the Article of charge framed a list of documents by which the articles of charge were sought to be proved and list of witnesses was supplied, alongwith the AOC. Reply to the above memorandum was filed by the respondent on 30.5.1993. The Inquiry officer completed the enquiry and submitted his report on 21.05.1994. Thereafter the Directorate of C.R.P.F., vide communication dated 8th June, 1994 informed the respondent that enquiry report had been revived, and before the Disciplinary Authority would take appropriate decision on Inquiry officer™s report, he would be at liberty to make a representation. Alongwith this communication, besides other documents, a copy of the enquiry report was also made available. The central Government took a final decision vide order No. D.IX-3U/92-CRC dated 18.4.1995, whereunder the respondent was removed from service. The respondent approached the writ court. The writ court directed that the status of the respondent be maintained and finally passed the judgment impugned on 19.5.1997. Hence this appeal.
3. The main ground upon which the impugned judgment is challenged is that the writ court has erroneously held the present case to be a case of no evidence. Another ground, ancillary to the first ground is that the writ court has lent support to the finding from fenciful surmises, while in fact and law no support was available.
4. Mr. Bhardwaj, appearing for the respondent, has tried to impress upon the court that there was no evidence before the central Government, the writ court was justified in holding it to be a case of no evidence and that judicial intervention is called for wherever the decision of the disciplinary authority is perverse.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record
6. In the first instance we would like to reproduce the factual features of the case, such reproduction may, for their repetition, sound distasteful but in the light of the circumstances of the case and particularly the observations made by the writ court, we are constrained to do it. We have gone through the statement of the respondent, which was recorded by the Inquiry officer, we have also gone through the resumes of facts drawn by the Inquiry officer from the statement of the respondent, we have also gone through the preliminary and uncontested report of Sh. Daljit Singh, commandant 67 Bn CRPF. On appreciation of the statement of the respondent, we find the following facts having been admitted: -
i That the respondent was the officer in command of the raiding te
