IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Civil Writ Petition No. 1147 of 2004 Judgement reserved on: 11.8.2009. Date of decision: 9.9.2009. K.P. Singh …..Petitioner. Vs. The High Court of Himachal Pradesh & ors. …. Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kuldip Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : M/s J.L. Bhardwaj and Anand Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondents : Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Anshul Bansal, Addl. Advocate General with Mr. R.P.Singh, Assistant Advocate General, for respondent No.2. Ms Vidushi Sharma, Advocate vice Ms. Bindya Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Kuldip Singh, Judge. The petitioner through this petition has prayed for quashing of order/ notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 vide which the petitioner has been removed from service by respondent No. 2 on the basis of recommendations of respondent No.1, quashing of enquiry proceedings including enquiry report dated 4.2.2004 and Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? …2… directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 5.6.2004 with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of salary alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum. 2. The pleaded case of the petitioner is that one K.C.Sadyal was posted as Superintendent of Police at Una, who had been secretly monitoring the activities, functioning of Judicial Officers and their staff. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 3.10.1990 Annexure P-1 to K.C. Sadyal asking him on whose instance he was monitoring the functioning and supervising the Judicial Officers and their staff, who replied vide letter dated 8.10.1990 Annexure P-2 and had shown his regrets but tried to explain that the information was required by District & Sessions Judge, Una. K.C. Sadyal had the impression that he had been let down and as such he was carrying grudge against the petitioner. 3. K.C.Sadyal was later on promoted as Dy. Inspector General of Police and was posted at Dharamshala. Karan Sadyal minor son of K.C. Sadyal was studying in Dalhousie Public School, Dalhousie and was a boarder. One Maninder Vir had estranged relations with his wife Deepa Singh, Advocate, who filed a complaint against the petitioner subsequently, was the local guardian of Karan Sadyal. K.C. Sadyal was having close family relations with Maninder Vir and helped him in lodging a false rapat on 30.11.2002 against the petitioner through his minor son. K.C. Sadyal also had family relations with Raja Brijinder Singh of Princely State Chamba, whose wife Asha Kumari was a powerful minister in H.P. and at the relevant time was State Minister of Higher Education in Himachal Pradesh. …3… 4. The petitioner remained posted at Dalhousie from August 1996 to May 1999. A public interest Civil Suit No. 42 of 1997 was filed through Deepa Singh, Advocate with the allegations that Asha Kumari and Raja Brijinder Singh had got mutated in their favour huge property of the State by manipulation. Raja Brijinder Singh and Asha Kumari exerted a great pressure on the petitioner to decide the suit in their favour, they tried to approach the petitioner through his wife Lalita Singh, who was Gazetted Officer in Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time and was working as Child Development and Project Officer, Chowari. The wife of the petitioner refused to oblige Raja Brijinder Singh and Asha Kumari. She was harassed, suspended and charge-sheeted on frivolous grounds but later on was exonerated. 5. The petitioner and his family members were threatened after the institution of the aforesaid suit through anonymous calls. An attempt was made on the life of the petitioner when he was intentionally hit in a vehicular accident in July 1997. The petitioner and his son sustained serious injuries but had a miraculous escape. They failed to eliminate the petitioner, the rivals of the petitioner started writing anonymous and false complaints against the petitioner to the High Court. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record decreed Civil Suit No. 42 of 1997 on 14.5.1998. In appeal, the suit was remanded back and in May 2004 it was dismissed in default in connivance with advocate Deepa Singh. 6. On the basis of judgement dated 14.5.1998, an FIR No. 3 of 2001 was registered under Sections 218, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against …4… Asha Kumari, Brijinder Singh and some others and the case is pending before the Sessions Judge, Chamba. In view of bold and fearless decision taken by the petitioner he was victimized. 7. The petitioner was falsely involved in a departmental inquiry by conspiring and alleging false complaints against him. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him vide order dated 24.12.2002 Annexure P-4. the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 8.8.2003 vide Annexure P-5 and as many as seven charges were leveled against him. The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P-6 to the charge-sheet. 8. The Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner in violation of Rules, settled proposition of natural justice. The petitioner even filed an application dated 31.12.2003 Annexure P-7 to change the Inquiry Officer but his request was turned down on 2.1.2004 vide Annexure P-8. The petitioner due to paucity of time could not file review application before the Reviewing Authority as per instructions issued under the Rules against the order of Disciplinary Authority. 9. The Presenting Officer had filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence of witnesses namely Janesh Mahajan, G.S. Sawney, Sidharath, Ajit Singh and J.B. Singh, who were not included in the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet. The Inquiring Authority allowed the additional evidence application on 17.11.2003 in an illegal manner. The Presenting Officer on 3.12.2003 …5… closed his evidence and the petitioner was required to lead his evidence. On 22.12.2003 the petitioner had concluded his evidence and left the office of Inquiring Authority. The Presenting Officer by sending an application through his staff member tendered some additional documents Ex. P2/A and passenger manifest Ex. P48 for placing on record, which were not in the list of documents supplied to the petitioner alongwith charge-sheet. The Inquiring Authority arbitrarily allowed taking on record the aforesaid documents in absence of the petitioner. On 26.12.2003, the Presenting Officer filed an application for placing on record Ex. P4/A, Ex. P7/A, Ex. P11/A to Ex. P13/A on the ground that said documents are the certified copies of original. The petitioner had opposed the said application, but the Inquiring Authority allowed the said documents to be taken on record. On 27.12.2003, the petitioner by filing an application Annexure P-9 had requested for reviewing the order dated 22.12.2003 whereby aforesaid documents were wrongly taken on record. The Inquiring Authority on 27.12.2003 had wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner. 10. The petitioner also filed an application dated 27.12.2003 Annexure P-12 for reviewing the order dated 26.12.2003 but the Inquiring Authority rejected that application also. The petitioner filed yet another application on 27.12.2003 Annexure P-14 for supplying copies of documents Ex. P-42 to Ex. P-45, Ex. P-46, Ex.P4/A to Ex.P7/A, Ex. P11/A to Ex.P13/A. The Inquiring Authority allowed the said application. The Inquiring Authority had again allowed the presenting side to fill up the gaps and lacunas in the evidence by …6… permitting the presenting side to place on record various new documents without their formal proof. 11. On 3.1.2004 the inquiry proceedings were fixed for final arguments and on that date the Presenting Officer moved yet another application to place on record alleged application for visa submitted by the petitioner at Bangkok on 10.12.2002 alongwith its covering letter dated 30.12.2003 from Royal Thai Embassy New Delhi. These documents were not included in the list of documents supplied to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet. The Inquiring Officer allowed the said application and the documents were placed on record as Ex. P-49 and Ex. P-50 vide order dated 3.1.2004 Annexure P-15. 12. The petitioner had submitted written arguments. The Inquiring Authority submitted inquiry report dated 4.2.2004. The respondent No. 1 on 26.2.2004 had invited written representation of petitioner to inquiry report. The petitioner had filed detailed representation dated 31.3.2004 Annexure P-17 in which request of personal hearing was made. The respondent No. 1 had communicated to petitioner a notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 vide which on the basis of recommendations of Full Court Meeting dated 7.4.2004 the petitioner was removed from service. 13. The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 1.7.2004 Annexure P-19 to respondent No.1 seeking the copy of proceedings of Full Court Meeting held on 7.4.2004. The respondent No. 1 on 22.7.2004 Annexure P-20 had rejected the request of the petitioner to supply the proceedings of Full Court Meeting held on 7.4.2004. The petitioner believes that his comments on the inquiry …7… report were not properly considered while recommending the penalty of removal from service on 7.4.2004. The Disciplinary Authority under rules 15 and 17 of CCA Rules and instructions issued thereunder has legal obligation to issue self contained and speaking orders in recording its findings on each article of charge while considering the representation against the inquiry report and was also required to supply the copy of findings to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner while accepting the inquiry report and imposing penalty of removal from service. 14. The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 on the grounds that Annexure P-18 is not a speaking order. It has been passed on the basis of recommendations of the High Court. There is no independent application of mind by respondent No. 2. The proceedings of Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 were not supplied to the petitioner who believes that comments submitted by him against the inquiry report were not considered, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a speaking order and also required to supply copy of the same under Rule 17 to the petitioner and thus the impugned notification is illegal. The Inquiring Authority has violated sub-rule 15 of Rule 14. Many documents were taken on record by Inquiring Authority in violation of sub-rule 15 of rule 14. The report of Inquiring Authority is based on total misreading of evidence and the findings recorded are perverse. …8… The documents Ex. P42 to Ex. P-50 were wrongly taken on record and exhibited. 15. The Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in a biased and prejudiced manner. The complainant was permitted to assist the Presenting Officer, the presenting side documents were taken on record even after the closure of the evidence. The Inquiring Authority did not allow the petitioner to file reply to the application of Presenting Officer dated 26.12.2003. The review application was wrongly rejected on27.12.2003. The written arguments submitted before the Inquiring Authority were not considered. The copies of the statements of most of the witnesses were not supplied at the proper time to the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority did not provide appropriate opportunity to lead defence evidence. The Inquiring Authority had wrongly allowed recording of additional evidence of PW J.B.Singh and PW Sidharath etc. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority both at the stages of considering his reply to charge-sheet dated 8.8.2003 and also at final stage whereby his comments to the inquiry report were sought. The findings of guilt recorded by the Inquiring Authority are not supported by the evidence on record. The Inquiring Authority has drawn wrong presumption from the evidence on record. The respondent No. 1 had wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for changing the Inquiring Authority. 16. The respondent No. 1 has contested the petition by filing the reply in which preliminary objection has been taken that petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands as he has suppressed …9… material facts and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. It has been denied that complaint against the petitioner was falsely made by Maninder Vir at the instance of K.C.Sadyal, Superintendent of Police, Una, who was later on promoted as Dy. Inspector General of Police, Dharamshala. The petitioner has been removed from service after holding regular inquiry in accordance with law. It has been denied that petitioner has been victimized by respondents due to his having decided a Civil Suit against Asha Kumari and others. It has been denied that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner illegally on the basis of false complaints. It has been denied that Inquiring Authority while conducting the inquiry has acted in illegal and arbitrary manner as well as in violation and settled propositions of law. The allegation that Inquiring Authority has acted in a biased manner with a view to implicate the petitioner has also been denied. 17. The petitioner while posted as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie during the period 13.8.1996 to 11.6.1999 and subsequently as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali w.e.f. 21.6.1999 to 25.12.2002 was having illicit relations with lady lawyer Deepa Singh of Dalhousie. As Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, the petitioner had applied for leave from 9.12.2002 to 22.12.2002 on the pretext that he was sick but actually he went to Thailand alongwith Deepa Singh on 10.12.2002 and both of them had returned to India on 22.12.2002. The petitioner did not obtain prior permission of the competent authority for going to Thailand. A telegram Annexure R1/A addressed …10… to Chief Justice was received in the Registry of respondent No. 1. On receipt of telegram Annexure R1/A, the matter was processed further and the Full Court of respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 24.12.2002 after due application of mind had ordered to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and also placed him under suspension. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure P-5. The petitioner filed his reply Annexure P-6 and denied all the articles of charges. The Full Court of respondent No. 1 after due application of mind had decided to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The application of the petitioner for changing the Inquiring authority was considered and rejected after due application of mind. The Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in accordance with law. It is denied that additional evidence was allowed to fill up the gaps and lacunas left in the inquiry. 18. The documents Ex. P2/A and Ex. P-48 were tendered in evidence by the Presenting Officer on 22.12.2003 in presence of the petitioner and not behind his back. The application Annexure P-9 filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order for taking on record Ex. P2/A and Ex. P48 was rightly rejected by the Inquiring Authority. The documents Ex. P4/A, Ex. P7/A and P11/A to Ex. P13/A were filed by the Presenting Officer before the Inquiring Authority, which were the certified copies of the documents already on record. The Inquiring Authority in these circumstances has committed no wrong in accepting the application while taking on record such documents. The documents were taken on record after hearing the petitioner, …11… therefore, review application Annexure P-12 was rightly rejected by the Inquiring Authority vide Annexure P-13. 19. Some documents were not relied upon earlier on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, an application for leading additional evidence was filed for placing those documents on record before the Inquiring Authority, who after considering the application allowed the same in accordance with law. This in no way amounts to fill up the lacunas left in the case of Disciplinary Authority. The procedure adopted by the Inquiring Authority to produce the documents in evidence is in accordance with sub-rule 15 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Inquiring Authority has committed no illegality in taking on record documents Ex. P-49 and Ex. P-50 vide order dated 3.1.2004 Annexure P-15. 20. The written arguments Annexure P-16 filed by the petitioner were considered by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiring Authority was not biased who conducted the inquiry in a fair and impartial manner. The Inquiring Authority has found that articles of charge No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stand proved against the petitioner in his report Annexure R1/E. The Inquiring Authority has given reasons for relying on Ex. P-49 and Ex. P-50. In these circumstances, the observations made by Inquiring Authority in para-81 referred by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 had considered Annexure P-17 the request of the petitioner for personal hearing and found baseless, therefore, rejected. The representation Annexure P-17 of the petitioner against the inquiry report was considered and was found far fetched and contrary to factual position. …12… The respondent No. 1 did not find any illegality or irregularity in the inquiry report which as a matter of fact is based upon proper appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties during the course of inquiry proceedings. 21. The conclusion drawn by the Inquiring Authority also found having been based upon evidence which has come on record. The charges against the petitioner were serious in nature and the same were duly proved during the course of inquiry, therefore, respondent No. 1 was absolutely justified in accepting the report of Inquiring Authority. In the opinion of respondent No.1, it was not in public interest to retain the petitioner any further in service, because the duties of a Judicial Officer are of very sensitive in nature. The respondent No. 1 has still taken a lenient view by imposing the penalty of removal instead of dismissal from service of petitioner. The representation referred by the petitioner in para18 of the petition was considered by respondent No.1 and disposed of by passing a reasoned order. On the basis of decision taken by respondent No. 1 regarding removal of petitioner from service after considering his representation to the inquiry report a reference was made to Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 for removing the petitioner from H.P. Judicial Service with immediate effect was issued by respondent No. 2. The representation Annexure P-19 dated 1.7.2004 was considered and it was not deemed proper and necessary to supply the copy of minutes of Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 to the petitioner, and in these circumstances, the …13… representation Annexure P-19 was ordered to be filed. However, representation made by the petitioner against the inquiry report was duly considered by respondent No. 1 and thereafter major penalty of removal from service was imposed. 22. The respondent No. 2 has also contested the petition by filing a reply. The respondent No. 2 has taken the stand that Judicial Officers of the State are under the administrative control of the High Court. The notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 was issued by respondent No. 2 on the recommendations of High Court. The respondent No. 2 has ultimately prayed for dismissal of the petition. 23. The respondent No. 3 has filed reply in which he has stated that record of proceedings of inquiry was available with respondent No.1 and the allegations of alleged commission or non- commission of any irregularities or illegality by respondent No. 3 in the course of inquiry proceedings may be judged by the court itself on merits and adopted the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 with regard to paras 1 to 24 alongwith grounds contained in sub- paras (a) to (o) of the main petition. The respondent No.3, however, has also made additional submissions with respect to sub-paras (i) and (h) of the grounds of writ petition. It has been denied that Ex. P2/A and Ex. P48 were taken on record in absence of the petitioner. These documents were taken on record in presence of the petitioner and the petitioner had objected against the admission of these documents even at that stage. The objection of the petitioner was considered on 22.12.2003. It has been denied that complainant had been frequently visiting the chamber of respondent No.3. The proceedings were …14… conducted in the court chamber of respondent No. 3 in presence of both the parties and their counsel. The inquiry proceedings were not the proceedings of court of District & Sessions Judge, where respondent No. 3 was posted as District Judge, the record of the case has not been maintained and dealt by regular court staff. In these circumstances, at one or two occasions the complainant and so also the petitioner had seen respondent No. 3 for a minute or two for inquiring about some procedural matters of innocuous nature such as the date fixed in the case and issuance of summons etc. to the witnesses. The inquiry has been conducted impartially and in fair manner and without prejudice or bias in favour or against any party. The allegations made against respondent No. 3 are false, baseless, uncalled for and unfounded. 24. The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No.1 and reiterated the stand taken in the petition. He has placed on record Annexure P-25 application, copy of OMP No. 462/04 in CS No. 50 of 2003 Maninder Vir vs. Deepa Singh seeking permission to withdraw the suit. The petitioner has also placed on record Annexure P-26 copy of order dated 24.9.2004 passed in OMP No. 462/04 in CS No. 50/03 permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. The petitioner has filed CMP No. 418 of 2008 for placing on record Annexure- A to Annexure-O on record. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to reply of respondent No. 3 and reiterated his stand which he has taken in the writ petition. 25. The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the following articles of charge:- …15… ARTICLE –I That Shri K.P. Singh, a member of H.P. Judicial Service (now under suspension), while posted as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jawali, applied for leave from 9.12.2002 to 22.12.2002 on the false pretext that he was sick, but actually he went to Thailand on 10.12.2002 with a lady lawyer, Ms. Deepa Singh of Dalhousie, and returned in her company on 22.12.2002 and thus he committed an act of misconduct, as defined in Rule 2(1) (ii) (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE –II That the said Shri K.P. Singh , while posted as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jawali, remained willfully absent from duty from 10.12.2003 to 22.12.2003 (sic) and thereby committed an act of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE –III That said Shri K.P. Singh, while posted at Jawali as Sub Judge-cum- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, went to Thailand on 10.12.2002 and remained there till his return to India on 22.12.2002, without obtaining permission of the competent Authority, that is, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and thereby committed an act of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(1) (ii) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE –IV That said Shri K.P.Singh, while functioning as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Dalhousie from 12.8.1996 to 11.6.1999 and Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jawali from 21.6.1999 to 25.12.2002 had been having illicit relations with a lady lawyer, named Ms. Deepa Singh of Dalhousie, inspite of the fact that not only he himself (Shri K.P.Singh) is a married man, but Ms. Deepa Singh is also a married woman, to his knowledge, and thereby committed an …16… act of misconduct, unbecoming of a Government servant, especially a Judicial Officer, as defined in Rule 2(1) (i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE –V That during his posting at Jawali as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, said Shri K.P.Singh had been having illicit relations with a lady named Ms. Jeenat Mahajan of Pathankot, which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and he thereby committed an act of misconduct, as defined in Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. ARTICLE –VI That