Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 744
2012(1) JLJ 224
Sujoy Paul, J.
Suresh Chand Upadhyay v. Union of India
Writ Petition (S) No.2203 of 2006 (Gwalior); Decided on 29.9.2011.
Susheel Chaturvedi for petitioner;
V.K. Bharadwaj with Raja Sharma for respondents.
Headnote:(1) Civil Servant -- disciplinary proceedings -- serious charge of bribery -- should be specific, definite and detailed -- cannot be based on hearsay statement -- required to be proved to the hilt -- suspicion however strong it may be -- cannot take place of proof -- non-examination of material witnesses -- vitiates the enquiry -- petitioner directed to be re-instated within two months -- not entitled for back wages -- however, entitled to count his services for all other purposes.
Held : There is a unique similarity to a great extent between the case in hand and that of Jai Bhagwan (supra). In Jai Bhagwan‘s case also there was no proof of taking bribe nor complainants were examined in the departmental proceedings. In absence thereof, on the basis of returning of that amount to the complainants it was held to be sufficient proof against the delinquent employee. Same is the case here. The apex Court in the said case held that it is a case of no evidence.
Following the ratio of this judgment, this Court is of the considered opinion that in the present case also the findings of enquiry officer are perverse and the charges are not established. It is a case of no evidence. (2006)12 SCC 321, (2009)12 SCC 78, AIR 1964 SC 364, 2002(4) MPHT 418, (2009)2 SCC 570 and (2011)6 SCC 376 followed.
(2) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry -- mere non-supply of required document to the accused -- will not vitiate the enquiry in absence of any prejudice. AIR 1991 SC 471, (1993)4 SCC 727, (2005)8 SCC 211 and (2011)2 SCC 316 followed. [Paras 10 to 12
(3) Civil Servant -- departmental enquiry -- non-speaking order by revisional authority -- is a cryptic order passed without application of mind -- deserved to be set aside. (2009)2 SCC 570 followed. [Para 21
¼1½ flfloy lsod && vuq‘kklfud dk;Zokfg;k¡ && fj‘or dk xaHkhj vkjksi && fofufnZ"V] fuf‘pr rFkk foLr`r gksuk pkfg, && vuqJqr dFku ij vk/kkfjr ugha fd;k tk ldrk && bldk iw.kZr;k lkfcr fd;k tkuk visf{kr && lansg Hkys&gh izcy gks && izek.k dk LFkku ugha ys ldrk && rkfRod lkf{k;ksa dh ijh{kk u dh tkuk && foHkkxh; tk¡p dks nwf"kr djrk gS && ;kph dks nks ekl ds Hkhrj cgky fd;k tkus dk funs‘k && fiNyh etnwjh dk gdnkj ugha && rFkkfi] vU; lHkh iz;kstuksa ds fy, viuh lsokvksa dks x.kuk esa ysus dk gdnkjA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % izLrqr ekeys rFkk t; Hkxoku ¼iwoksZDr½] ds ekeys ds e/; dqN lhek rd vuwBh lekurk gSA t; Hkxoku ds ekeys esa Hkh fj‘or ysus dk dksbZ izek.k ugha Fkk rFkk u gh foHkkxh; dk;Zokfg;ksa esa ifjokfn;ksa dh ijh{kk dh xbZ FkhA buds vHkko esa] ifjokfn;ksa dks og jde okil ykSVkus ds vk/kkj ij vipkjh deZpkjh ds fo:) i;kZIr izek.k gksuk vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k x;kA ;gh ekeyk ;gk¡ gSA mDr ekeys esa loksZPp U;k;ky; us vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k fd ;g ^lk{; ugha* dk ekeyk gSA
bl fu.kZ; ds vk/kkj dk vuqlj.k djrs gq,] bl U;k;ky; dh lqfopkfjr jk; gS fd izLrqr ekeys esa Hkh tk¡p vf/kdkjh dk fu"d"kZ vuqfpr gS rFkk vkjksi LFkkfir ugha gksrs gSaA ;g ^lk{; ugha* dk ekeyk gSA ¼2006½12 ,l lh lh 321] ¼2009½12 ,l lh lh 78] , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 364] 2002¼4½ ,e ih ,p Vh 418] ¼2009½2 ,l lh lh 570 rFkk ¼2011½6 ,l lh lh 376 vuqlfjrA
¼3½ flfoy lsod && foHkkxh; tk¡p && vfHk;qDr dks visf{kr nLrkost dh vukiwfrZ ek= && fdlh iwokZxzg ds vHkko esa tk¡p dks nwf"kr ugha djsxhA , vkb vkj 1991 ,l lh 471] ¼1993½4 ,l lh lh 727] ¼2005½8 ,l lh lh 211 rFkk ¼2011½2 ,l lh lh 316 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 10 ls 12
¼3½ flfoy lsod && foHkkxh; tk¡p && iqujh{k.k izkf/kdkjh }kjk vuk[;kid vkns‘k && euksfu;ksx ds fcuk ikfjr vLi"V vkns‘k gS && vikLr fd, tkus ;ksX;A ¼2009½2 ,l lh lh 570 vuqlfjrA ¼iSjk 21
1. The brief facts necessary for adjudication of this matter are as under:
The petitioner who was a Constable in Railway Protection Force was subjected to disciplinary proceedings pursuant to the issuance of charge-sheet (Annexure P-1) dated 9.2.1993. The said charge-sheet was followed by departmental enquiry. After the enquiry a punishment of removal from service was inflicted on the petitioner by order dated 25.2.1994. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by the aforesaid punishment order, preferred an appeal before the statutory appellate authority. However, the said appellate authority did not decide the appeal preferred by the petitioner. At this stage, petitioner filed a writ petition before the Allahabad High Court. The Allahabad High Court passed the order in Writ Petition No.14226/94 on 25.1.2005 (page 77). A perusal of the order of the High Court shows that this was an admitted position between the parties that enquiry officer’s report was not supplied to the petitioner before imposition of punishment of removal. However, the High Court did not deal with the merits of the matter and relegated the petitioner to avail statutory remedy of revision by preferring a revision petition before the revisional authority. In turn, the revisional authority was directed to decide the revision expeditiously.
2. In turn, the petitioner preferred a revision petition Annexure P-10. The said revision is decided by the competent authority on 6.1.2006. The revisional order reads as under :
“I have carefully considered the revision petition submitted by Shri Suresh Chandra Upadhyay, Ex-CT/RPF along with all the relevant documents. I find that the charges are of very serious nature. We cannot permit the officers and men of this force to indulge in corrupt practices. The men in uniform cannot take advantage of their position to fleece innocent passengers. I find no merit in the petition and there is no ground to interfere with the orders issued earlier. Hence the petition, which is devoid of any merit, is rejected.”
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the revisional order issued by the Railway Board is served on the petitioner at Gwalior. The petitioner has assailed the punishment order on following grounds :
(i) The charge-sheet given to the petitioner in English contains different names of the passengers/complainants qua the names mentioned in the Hindi version of the same charge-sheet.
(ii) By an executive instruction dated 7.5.1992 the respondent department decided to follow the judgment of Supreme Court in Ramzan Khan’s case and, therefore, before punishment the enquiry officer’s report ought to have been given to the petitioner.
(iii) The enquiry officer’s report has not been served to the petitioner before imposition of punishment of removal. Thus, it runs contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported in AIR 1991 SC 471 (Union of India v. Mohd. Ramzan Khan), and vitiates the enquiry.
(iv) The witnesses and documents desired by the petitioner were not summoned and provided.
(v) The enquiry officer’s findings are perverse and it is a case of no evidence.
(vi) Material witnesses were not examined in the departmental enquiry.
(vii) The revisional order is cryptic and non-speaking order, which does not contain any reason. The punishment is expressively harsh and disproportionate.
4. Shri Bharadwaj, learned senior counsel with Shri Raja Sharma, per contra submits that the disciplinary proceedings are governed by the statutory rules which are known as the Railway Protection Force Rules, 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘RPF Rules’). By taking the Court to various provisions of the rules, the learned senior counsel submits that the enquiry is conducted strictly in consonance with the aforesaid rules. The learned counsel heavily relied on rule 154.2 of the RPF Rules, which reads as under :
“154.2 While communicating the order imposing the punishment, a copy of the findings of the enquiry officer shall also be given to the
