Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 Date of Decision: 31.7.2009 Constable Jai Bhagwan …Petitioner Versus Union Territory of Chandigarh and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. Petitioner was posted as Constable in Chandigarh Police. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh, on 9.1.2002, vide Annexure P1, awarded punishment of forfeiture of two increments with permanent effect on the ground that it was proved in the inquiry that while performing traffic duty, petitioner had harassed a driver of the Car and demanded bribe. The Appellate Authority upheld the order of punishment and the revision preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. Petitioner assailed these orders before the Central Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 2 Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, and having failed there, has approached this Court by filing the present writ petition. Three prescribed authorities having concurred on the facts of the case, have affirmed punishment awarded to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any lack of jurisdiction, any malafide or any non-observance of principles of natural justice on the part of the authorities. He has also failed to disclose any patent irregularity committed by the authorities, in the present writ petition, which was listed for motion hearing. Briefly stated, petitioner Jai Bhagwan was recruited as Constable on 13.5.1988. On 30.6.2000, he was on traffic duty along with Mohinder Dutt, Assistant Sub Inspector. At that time, one Mr. A.K. Sharma, resident of House No. 424-A, Sector 30, Chandigarh, allegedly committed traffic violation of making an entry from wrong side. Mr. A.K. Sharma was driving the Santro Car. On the challan issued, Mr. A.K. Sharma had disclosed his address as resident of CH-12, Ist Floor, A.G. Road, New Delhi. Mr.A.K. Sharma made a complaint in writing on 7.7.2000 to respondent No.4-Inspector General of Police, Union Territory, Chandigarh. Copy of the complaint has been annexed as Annexure P5. He stated in the complaint that petitioner along with Mohinder Dutt, Sub Inspector, had demanded a bribe and on his refusal had taken away the licence. It is alleged that the petitioner had stated that “you will have to come from Delhi, you may incur expenses of tea etc. of Inspector Sahib and get the licence back”. On the complaint received, a preliminary inquiry was held and Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 3 petitioner along with Mohinder Dutt, Assistant Sub Inspector, was placed under suspension. On basis of preliminary inquiry, departmental inquiry was ordered. Seven witnesses including the complainant were examined. An opportunity of cross-examination was afforded to the petitioner and the Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Senior Superintendent of Police, Chandigarh, vide Annexure P1 passed the order of punishment against which the petitioner had filed an appeal. Dismissal of appeal led the petitioner to institute revision. Having failed in the revision petition, the petitioner assailed the orders of authorities by filing an original application before the Chandigarh Bench of Central Administrative Tribunal, which had dismissed the original application of the petitioner. The Tribunal observed that it is settled law that in respect of departmental inquiry, the Tribunal cannot re- appreciate the evidence and substitute it with own findings where findings of disciplinary authority/appellate authority are based on some evidence. The Tribunal further found that it is not a case where inquiry is vitiated for non-observance of principles of natural justice or the findings are not based on any evidence or the punishment is totally disproportionate to misconduct of the employee. The Tribunal concluded that petitioner had failed to persuade the Tribunal to exercise limited scope of judicial review as the respondent-employer of the petitioner had followed the due procedure. We have heard Mr. Naveen Sheoran, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner. During course of arguments, counsel could not point out any animus on the part of the complainant to falsely implicate the petitioner. However, counsel for the petitioner has made following three Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 4 submissions: 1) It was urged before us that complainant should not be relied as in the challan he had given the address of Delhi, whereas in complaint he has furnished his address of Chandigarh; 2) Further that at the time of preliminary hearing, no opportunity was afforded to the petitioner to cross- examine the complainant; 3) Lastly, it was submitted that the authorities have failed to appreciate the defence plea raised by the petitioner. We are of the view that all the three submissions made by counsel for the petitioner are liable to be rejected. This Court, while exercising writ jurisdiction, neither can review the concurrent findings of the fact recorded by authorities below nor can do re-appraisal or re- evaluation of the evidence. So far the argument that petitioner was not afforded any opportunity to cross-examine the complainant during preliminary inquiry, we are of the view that this argument has been rightly dealt with by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh, holding that there was no procedural lapse. The Tribunal held as under:- “...Rule 16.23 prescribes that on receipt of a complaint from a member of the general public against a member of police force, the competent authority would entrust the matter to some officer forgoing into the complaint and after recording the Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 5 statements of the complainant and other witnesses, submit the report to the competent authority. If the competent authority is of the opinion that the allegations in the record constitute a prima facie case for inquiry, he shall then proceed upon the said official/officer who committed the mis-conduct, a summary of allegations based on the evidence collected in the preliminary inquiry. However, no right is given to the concerned official before this stage of participating in the preliminary inquiry what to say of cross-examining the witnesses the purpose of such inquiry is only fact finding to find out as to whether there is a fit case for starting regular departmental inquiry proceedings. It has been laid down in this Rule that statements recorded in such preliminary inquiry shall not be regarded as evidence in the departmental proceedings as the witnesses have to be called and examined and thereafter opportunity of cross examination has to be given in the disciplinary inquiry proceedings. The contention of the applicant that he was not given the copy of the preliminary inquiry report and was not allowed to cross examine the witnesses at that stage is thus without any legal basis. Since the preliminary inquiry report has not been used as evidence, non- supply of copy of the same is found to be not Civil Writ Petition No. 7707 of 2009 6 against the rules as inquiry proceedings starts with the summary of allegations/imputations”. We are conscious that the jurisdiction of the High Court to issue a writ of certiorari against the order of Tribunal is of a supervisory jurisdiction and not appellate one. The finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be re-opened or questioned in the writ proceedings when the judgment or order suffer from no error of law. In the present case, the Tribunal had appreciated the issues raised and the reasoning of the Tribunal is appropriate, therefore, no interference is called for in the present writ petition, same, being devoid of merit, is dismissed in limine. (T.S. Thakur) (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Chief Justice Judge July 31st, 2009 “DK”