Raja Ram v. Union of India and Ors

order: "7. Charged official, in his defense statement, has stated that he was on deputation with Intelligence Bureau, New Delhi from December 2005 to 6.7.2010 as SA/G and during that period, he was deployed in FRRO/Immigration at IGI Airport, New Delhi. He further stated that on the intervening night of 28/29.4.2010, he was deployed at Arrival Right Wing. In between 2300 to 2400 hrs, there was a huge crowd at Arrival Counter and as per direction of ACIO Shri M Sriniwas, when he asked the passengers to stand in a queue, than one pax namely Jhirmal Singh argued with him and denied to stand in the queue. As the pax was travelling on Emergency Certificate, his documents were W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 14

handed over to Shri Dharam Singh, ACIO-II at counter no.4 by Shri M Sriniwas and thereafter, the pax was relieved from the counter after 45 minutes after immigration clearance. Thereafter, about 30 minutes, lady constable Kavita of Delhi Police / PCR brought the pax in the immigration office, who alleged that SA/G Raja Ram (charged official) and ACIO-II Dharam Singh extorted 100 euro and 50 euro respectively from him. The pax Jhirmal Singh identified both the charged official and Shri Dharam Singh, ACIO-II in front of lady constable Kavita, Shri M Sriniwas,. Shri L S Bisht, AFRRO/Arrival and Shri S N Sharma, AFRRO/Departure. Thereafter, both the officials were searched by Shri M Srinnwas in the presence of both the ADRRO, lady constable Kavita and the pax Jhirmal Singh, but no any amount was recovered from them. After the incident, charged official was placed under suspension vide order no. 1055/2/2010 dated 21.5.2010 and after one and half monthly, his suspension was revoked and he was repatriated to CISF on 1.7.2010 from where, he was posted to CISF unit ONGC Jorhat".

¶23It can be seen that the complainant was asked to stand in the queue which he was not inclined to do. Some altercation ensued and thereafter the allegations were levelled by him against the petitioner. The extracted paragraphs of the Disciplinary Authority's penalty order mentioned above would also show that the complainant's case was processed by someone else and not by the petitioner during the 45 minutes time period which took for his immigration clearance to be completed.

¶24All these facts reveal that the prime witness PW 1 was the aggrieved party. He clearly did not support the allegations and attempted to resile from whatever he stated during the initial stages W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 15

when the complaint was levelled by him against the petitioner. In the circumstances, the minimum expected from the Disciplinary Authority was to state why he chose the contents of the complaint over the statement made by PW-1 during the inquiry proceedings. No such attempt is forthcoming in the entire reasoned order of the Disciplinary Authority, which, as noted earlier, preferred the contents of the complaint and at the same discarded the testimony of PW-1, i.e. the complainant himself, during the inquiry. Other than these, there is in fact no evidence.

¶25This Court is conscious of the fact that under Article 226 of the Constitution, it does not sit in appeal over the judgment of a domestic inquiry. In the present case, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner. It cannot examine or scrutinize the parties as if it is an Appellate Court. Nevertheless, within the jurisdiction permitted to it, it can certainly ascertain whether any evidence or material existed with the decision making authority, i.e. Disciplinary Authority in the present case to arrive at a conclusion which is assailed before it.

¶26In case, where there is no evidence or material to support the conclusions, the Court in exercise of judicial review can set aside the ultimate orders made by the administrative authority. There is an authority in support of such proposition i.e, Union of India Vs. H C Goel,AIR 1964 SC 364 & [1964] 4 SCR 718, of a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court.

¶27The present is one such incident where the Disciplinary, Appellate and the Revisional Authorities based their conclusions and W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 16

findings without any supporting material or evidence.

¶28In fact, the evidence in the form of testimony of PW-1flew on the face of the allegations and undermine the charges levelled against the petitioner. The reasoning on which the Disciplinary Authority based its conclusions is that the petitioner had ample opportunities in the form of 45 minutes, during which the complainant went out and returned in order to make complaint about the 100 Euros, to somehow hide the money. Now, in order to support the conclusion of extortion, in the absence of the complainant's testimony; or as in the present case, his contrary testimony; the fact that the petitioner had possibly an opportunity to hide foreign currency is not sufficient material; it is certainly not proof of the fact that he had, in fact, extorted or attempted extortion from the passenger concerned.

¶29Having regard to the above discussions, this Court is of the opinion that the arguments of the respondents are unsustainable on the ground that it is not supported by any evidence or reasonable material to sustain a finding.

¶30Consequently, the impugned retirement order dated 14th May, 2011 issued by the Commandant, CISF, ONGC, Jorhat Unit, against the petitioner is set aside. He is directed to be reinstated to the service of the CISF immediately with all consequential benefits as if he had continued in service without a break from the said date i.e, 14th May, 2011 and shall also be entitled to the arrears and salary and other benefits.

¶31The petition is allowed in terms of the above. The directions in the present judgment shall be complied with by the respondents within W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 17

six weeks from today; during that period, the petitioner shall be given his posting orders and shall also be released all the arrears of pay and other benefits.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT (JUDGE)

SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA (JUDGE) MARCH 04, 2013 'P'

W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 1 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Date of decision: 04.03.2013 + W.P.(C) 194/2013 CONST. RAJA RAM NO. 873280156 ..... Petitioner Through : Mr. Arvind Kumar Patel with Mr. Hem Kumar, Advocates. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS ..... Respondents Through : Mr. Amritpal Singh, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT (OPEN COURT) % 1. On the previous date of hearing, this Court had issued notice requiring the respondents to produce the record of the inquiry and the records pertaining to the order of the Disciplinary Authority. Further to that order, the respondents have produced the relevant record. 2. Issue Rule. 3. Mr. Amritpal Singh, Advocate submits that the petition can be disposed of at this stage after final hearing. 4. The petitioner, who, at the relevant time was working in the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) at its Jorhat ONGC unit in Assam, was served charges through a Memorandum dated 29th December, 2010. 5. Prior to that, he was kept under suspension from 17.05.2010 to W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 2 30.06.2010 pending initiation of departmental proceedings. The charges levelled were that, while on duty at the IGI Airport/FRRO, New Delhi on the night of 28/29th April, 2010, a passenger, Jhirmal Singh, who arrived from Paris by flight No. AF 226 at about 10.45 p.m. complained that he (petitioner) extorted money to the extent of 100 Eruos from him. 6. It was also urged that the petitioner had been identified by the said complainant, Jhirmal Singh in the presence of Mr. L S Bisht. The charges were that the conduct was highly prejudicial and unbecoming to good order and the discipline of the force and also amounted to indiscipline and violation of lawful orders. The petitioner resisted the charges; the CISF appointed an Inquiry Officer who presided over the departmental proceedings. 7. During the inquiry proceedings, the complainant, Jhirmal Singh, who was produced by the respondents deposed as PW-1. He stated that when he reached at the Airport for the immigration, he was under tension due to which under some mistake and confusion, he had lodged a report and that in fact, the petitioner had not demanded any money; he also stated that he did not give any money to the petitioner. 8. PW-1 also stated that the petitioner had been searched in the Airport at that time by the police and that nothing was recovered from his person. Nevertheless, the Inquiry Officer was persuaded to return the finding of guilt on the strength of depositions of L.S. Bisht; Mr. M Sriniwas and one lady Constable, Kavita of Delhi Police. All these corroborated each other to the extent that Jhirmal Singh had complained against the petitioner and had identified him. W.P.(C) 194/2013 Page 3 9. After considering these facts and the nature of such evidence, the Competent Authority nevertheless concluded that the charges had been proved. The Competent Authority discarded the testimony of PW-1 but decided to accept his version in his complaint where he had levelled the allegations which formed the basis for everything. Significantly, the Disciplinary Authority noted as follows :- "11. On careful analysis of all the facts as discussed above, it is going to establish that Shri Jhirmil Singh, S/o. Shri Ajit Singh holder of Emergency Certificate No. 955410 dated 19.4.2010 issued from Paris, arrived at IGI Airport by flight No. AF 226 from Paris on 28.4.2010 at about 2245 hrs, and while completing the clearance formalities at the immigration counter, the charged official misbehaved with him and extorted money to the tune of 100 Euro from him. This fact is further proved from the statement of Shri Jhirmal Singh stating that he lodged a complaint with the PCTR of Delhi Police about extortion of money just after reaching outside the terminal building of IGI Airport, New Delhi and further supported by PW-2, PW-3 and PW-4 corroborating in their statements