W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 1 of 28 REPORATBLE * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Writ Petition (Civil) No.12496 of 2006 Reserved On: 29th September, 2010. % Pronounced On: 29th October, 2010. SHER SINGH NAINWAL . . . Petitioner through : Mr. Raman Duggal, Advocate VERSUS HIGH COURT OF DELHI . . .Respondent through: Mr. Rajiv Bansal, Advocate with Mr. Amandeep, Advocate CORAM :- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE REVA KHETRAPAL 1. Whether Reporters of Local newspapers may be allowed to see the Judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the Judgment should be reported in the Digest? A.K. SIKRI, J. 1. By this writ petition, the petitioner impugns orders dated 16.01.2006 whereby the Registrar General of the High Court of Delhi has conveyed the orders of Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of this Court imposing the penalty of dismissal from service on the petitioner under Rule 15(4) of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. This order has been passed after holding the regular departmental inquiry against the petitioner in which charges stood proved. W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 2 of 28 2. Before adverting to the nature of challenge laid to the findings of the inquiry and the impugned order of dismissal from service, we deem it proper to recapitulate the facts in brief. 3. The petitioner while working as Court Attendant in this Court was served with Memo dated 27.09.2003, on 29.09.2003 informing him that a Departmental Inquiry was sought to be initiated against him under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules‟). The allegations in the said Memo were to the effect that certain complaints had been received from different persons against the petitioner. Precise charges, which were framed in the said Memo were as follows: “ARTICLE – I ” That Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, Court Attendant made a false promise to Shri Krishan Gopal, S/o Shri Laxmi Narain, R/o 11018/8, Block 5A, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi0110005, an unemployed commerce graduate, who was introduced to him in April, 2002 by Shri Sher Singh Bhati, S/o Shri Manvir Singh Bhati, R/o House No.137, Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi-48 that he would get him (Shri Krishan Gopal) employed as Court Attendant in this Court by the month of June or July, 2002 on payment of `60,000/- as consideration for the same. ARTICLE – II That in pursuance of the aforesaid false promise Shri Krishan Gopal after taking loan made the payment of `60,000/- to Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, in the month of April, 2002 in the official vehicle No.0079 parked near India Gate in the presence of their common friend Shri Sher Singh Bhati, ender brother of Shri Krishan Gopal, namely, Shri Ramesh and two friends of Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, namely Shri Tarun and Shri Vimal. ARTICLE – III That Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, Court Attendant unauthorizedly used the Staff Car No.0079 allotted to PPS to Hon‟ble the W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 3 of 28 Chief Justice in the month of April, 2002 for the aforesaid purpose. ARTICLE – IV That said Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, Court Attendant also made a false promise to Shri Manadatt Sharma, S/o late Shri Sadanand Sharma, R/o House No.V.1/10, Phase-I, Budh Vihar, Delhi-110041, who was introduced to him by his nephew Shri Kishore, Chowkidar, Tis Hazari Courts, that Shri Sher Singh Nainwal would get his two sons , namely S/Shri Devender and Virender, employed in the High Court on payment of `80,000/- each as consideration for the same, half of the amount was to be paid before appointment and the balance half after joining duties by the applicants. ARTICLE – V That in pursuance of the aforesaid false promise Shri Manadatt Sharma after taking loan made the payment of `80,000/- on 13.06.2000 to said Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, towards half payment for getting his aforementioned two sons employed in this Court, in the room of Shri R.K. Mehta, the then Deputy Registrar, in the presence of S/Shri Rajesh, Kishore, and Devender, his neighbour, nephew and son respectively. ARTICLE – VI That said Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, Court Attendant also made a false promise to Shri Rajesh Kumar, S/o late Shri Gulab Chand, R/o House No.V.1/9, Budh Vihar, Delhi-11,41, who was introduced to him by Shri Manadatt Sharma that he would get him (Shri Rajesh Kumar) employed in the High court on payment of `80,000/- as consideration for the same. ARTICLE - VII That in pursuance of the aforesaid false promise Shri Rajesh Kumar, after arranging money by mortgaging the documents of his house property, paid `50,000/- on 13.06.2000 to said Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, for securing employment for him in this Court, in the room of Shri R.K. Mehta, the then Deputy Registrar, in the presence of Shri Manadatt Sharma, his neighbor, Shri Kishore and Shri Devender, nephew and son respectively of Shri Manadatt Sharma. ARTICLE – VIII That Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, Court Attendant while working in the Lawyers‟ Chamber Block, on 24.7.2003 at about 7.00 A.M. stealthily and mischievously, cut-off the „Choti‟ of his senior, Shri Ramlok Sharma, Court Officer, with a pair of scissors, while the latter was looking into the attendance register in the Court Officer‟s room in the lawyers, chamber block, on the pretext of clearing the „Jala‟ behind the seat of Shri Ramlok Sharma and fled away with the „Choti‟ abusing and threatening to kill him using filthy language, causing W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 4 of 28 humiliation, besides hurting religious sentiments of his superior. Thus, the said Shri Sher Singh Nainwal by his aforesaid acts of commission and omission acted very irresponsibly and is thus guilty of unauthorizedly extending also promises of employment in the High Court to the above named persons; soliciting and receiving money in consideration of the false promises so extended and misusing his official position; misbehaving his senior by cutting off the „Choti‟ besides threatening and abusing him amounting to unbecoming of a servant of this Court. The statement of imputations in support of the articles of charge may be stated as under:- A complaint dated 4.4.2003, addressed to Hon‟ble the Chief Justice of this Court was submitted by Shri Krishan Gopal, S/o Shri Lasxmi Narain, an unemployed Commerce graduate, R/o 11018/8, Block 5A, Sat Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 110005, against Shri Singh Nainwal, charged official alleging that on being introduced in April, 2002 through another person also named Shri Sher Singh Bhati, S/o Shri Manvir Singh Bhati, R/o House No.137, Gulabi Bagh, New Delhi -48, received `60,000/- from him, promising that he would secure employment for him in the High Court by the month of June or July, 2002. However, neither any such job was managed for him nor did the charged official refund the amount of `60,000/- despite requests and promises made by the charged official to the complainant. According to Shri Krishan Gopal, he made the payment of `60,000/- to the charged official in the month of April, 2002, in the official vehicle No.0079 parked near India Gate in the presence of their common friend Shri Sher Singh Bhati who works in Pant Hospital, and Shri Ramesh, the elder brother of Shri Krishan Gopal, and two friends of the charged official namely, Shri Tarun and Shri Vimal. The charged official had promised that he would get him (Krishan Gopal) employed in June/July, 2002. After the month of July had passed, he asked the charged official about his job to which the charged official replied that since Hon‟ble the Chief Justice had been transferred he would get him employed in the month of August or September, 2002. When the charged official did not get his employment till September, 2002, he suspected that the charged official would not be able to get him employed as promised. Then, he asked him to refund `60,000/- but the charged official refused to pay. However, he continued to demand the money back and the charged official promised that he would refund the amount after taking loan from his GPF. To prove his bonafide, the charged official gave a photocopy of the application for continued to W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 5 of 28 visit the High Court regularly for several months but instead of paying the money the charged official called names and even gave beatings to him. In support of his complaint, the complainant has also submitted two affidavits dated 22.4.2003 and 28.5.2003 (one in Hindi and the other in English), duly sworn by him. A second complaint/affidavit dated 2.6.2003 has been received from Shri Manadtt Sharma, S/o late Shri Sadanand Sharma, R/o Hose No. V-1/10, Phase-1 Budh vihar, Delhi 110041, to the effect that he came to know from his nephew, namely, Shri Kishore Sharma, working as Chowkidar in Tis Hazari Courts, that a person namely Shri Sher Singh Nainwal, S/o Shri Trilok Singh Nainwal, working as peon in the Delhi High Court could get people appointed in government service. According to him, Shri Kishore Sharma knew the charged official for the last about 5 years. According to the complainant, the charged official met his nephew, Shri Kishore Sharma in Tis Hazari and urged him that he could get a person, very close to him, employed in the High Court. When his nephew told him he (Complainant) got allured for the Government job and asked for arranging a meeting with the charged official. When contacted, the charged official asked them to see him at Gate No.1 in Tis Hazari. Accordingly, Shri Manadatt Sharma alongwith Shri Rajesh met the charged official outside Court No.1, Tis Hazari Court where the charged official demanded `40,000/- as half payment in consideration of getting each of his two sons, namely, S/Shri Devender and Virender employed in the High Court and the balance amount was to be paid to him on joining duties. Thereupon his neighbour, Mr. Rajesh also requested for employment for himself. On the next day, i.e. 13.06.2000, the charged official telephonically informed them to come to the High Court along with the money. On 13th June, 2000, i.e. during the summer vacation, Shri Manadatt Sharma along with Shri Rajesh came to the High Court and gave the charged official `80,000/- as half payment for getting his two sons, namely S/Sh. Devender and Virender employed. The said amount was given to the charged official in the room of Shri R.K. Mehta, the then Deputy Registrar. Thereafter the charged official asked them to wait and claimed that he would make a telephone call to Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Administrative Civil Judge, Tis Hazari Courts. However, they were not aware whether any telephone call, as claimed, was made or not but the charged official informed them that Sahib was not in the Court. Then he counted `80,000/-. Then Shri Rajesh also paid `50,000/- to the charged official in their presence. Thereafter the charged official kept on lingering the matter by making false promises. The charged official by W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 6 of 28 then had started driving Staff Car of Shri D.K. Batra, PPS and promised the complainant that he would get the work done through Shri D.K. Batra. The complainant also met the charged official many a times at the tea shop near Delhi High Court for return of the money. Thereafter Shri D.K. Batra removed the charged official from his office. When the complainant went to the house of the charged official demanding refund of his money and also talked to his father, his father told him that there was no need to come or make telephone call there and advised him to see the charged official in the Court only. Then the complainant met the charged official in the High Court and the charged official again assured the complainant that he would get the complainant employed. Thereafter, the complainant continued to visit the residence of Hon‟ble Mr. Justice C.K. Mahajan to see the charged official where he was posted. The charged official kept on assuring the complainant that he would get the complainant employed. Frustrated by this, the complainant lost hope of getting employment and demanded refund of his money, i.e., `80,000/- from the charged official who evaded refund thereof. The charged official also promised the complainant that he would refund the money in instalments of `20,000/- per month to the complainant after refund any money even after lapse of a long period and told him that he would pay when the money is available with him. The complainant has also enclosed with the complaint a copy of GPF withdrawal form given by the charged official. A third complaint dated 2.6.2003 has been received from Shri Rajesh Kumar, S/o late Shri Gulab Chand, R/o House No.V.1/9, Budh Vihar, Phase-I, Delhi-110041. Shri Rejesh has stated that he had come to know that the charted official who is employed as a peon in the High Court arranges Government jobs for people. He had come to know about this through Sh. Manadatt Sharma. Sh. Rajesh ha also stated that he, along with Shri Manadatt, met the charged official outside the Court No.1 in Tis Hazari Courts. The facts mentioned in the affidavit/complaint of Shri Manadatt Sharma and Shri Rajesh are almost identical. Shri Rajesh has, inter alia, stated that the charged official called him along with Shri Kishore and Shri Manadatt on 13th June, 2000 at 4.00 P.M., with half payment as consideration for getting them employed in the High Court. On reaching the High Court premises, the charged official took S/Shri Manadatt, Kishore, Devender and the complainant, to the chamber of Shri R.K. Mehta, Deputy Registrar. The Charged official received `80,000/- from Manadatt and `50,000/- from Shri Rajesh. Then he claimed to have made a telephone call to Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Administrative Civil Judge, Tis Hazari W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 7 of 28 Courts, and informed them that Sahib was not in his chamber and he was going to the residence of Shri Kamlesh Kumar to hand over the amount to him. Shri Rajesh has further stated that he is a very poor person and had arranged the money after mortgaging his house on which he is still paying the interest. Thereafter the charged official kept on lingering the matter for a long time. He neither got him employed as govt. servant nor did he refund the amount. To prove his bonafidee for refund of the money, the charged official also handed over to the complainant a copy of affidavit/complaint. A fourth complaint dated 24.07.2003 was received. Shri Ramlok Sharma, court Officer, wherein it has been, inter alia, stated that on 24.07.2003, at 7 A.M. after opening Lawyers‟ Chambers Block, he became busy in his routine work. At that time, the charted official Room Attendant, who was in the room, went outside and asked Smt. Daya Wati, Billoo and other Safai-wallas to go from there. Then he came back to his room and asked Shri Ramlok Sharma whether he (Sher Singh) should clean the „Jala‟ behind him in the room, where he was sitting. As Shri Ramlok was busy in his work, he told the charged official to do his duty at other places on that floor. Thereafter the charged official insisted that he wanted to clear the „Jala‟ and while the Court Officer was busy in his work, the charged official cut-off the “Choti” of Shri Ram Lok Sharma from behind with a pair of scissors and went outside with the „Choti‟ uttering untasteful words and threatening the Court Officer to finish him. Thus, the charged official by his aforesaid acts of omission and commission acted very irresponsibly and is thus guilty of unauthorizedly extending false promises to the above named persons; soliciting and receiving money in consideration of false promises so extended and misusing his official position; besides misbehaving, abusing and threatening his superior.” 4. It is clear from the above that the charge-sheet was based on the complaints given by certain persons alleging that the petitioner had taken money from them giving assurance that he would get them job in the High Court. It was alleged that these were false promises, as no such jobs were secured by the petitioner. Three complaints were of this nature. Fourth complaint was by a Court Officer of this Court, viz., Shri Ramlok Sharma alleging that the W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 8 of 28 petitioner had cut off his „Choti‟ from behind with a pair of scissors and went outside with the „Choti‟ uttering untasteful words and threatening the Court Officer to finish him. 5. The petitioner was asked to submit his written submission of defence. However, he failed to do so. In these circumstances, orders dated 17.1.2004 were passed appointing Shri B. Radhakrishna, Registrar (Admn.) as the Inquiring Authority to inquire into the aforesaid charges. By a separate order of even date, Shri H.C. Suri, Deputy Registrar was appointed as the Presenting Officer. The inquiry was held wherein nine witnesses were produced by the Department in support of the said charge. In defence, the petitioner did not produce any witness. However, he appeared himself as a witness and was cross-examined by the Presenting Officer. After the conclusion of evidence, the Inquiry Officer gave opportunity to both the parties to file their written submissions. Whereas the Presenting Officer filed the written arguments, the petitioner chose not to avail this opportunity. 6. The Inquiry Officer considered the evidence on record. He took Articles of Charges No. I to III together and after discussing the evidence, held these charges to be proved against the petitioner. Thereafter, the Inquiring Authority took up articles of charges No. IV to VII jointly for discussion and returned the findings that these charges also stood proved against the petitioner. Both sets of articles pertain to taking money and holding out false promises of securing jobs for the complainants. W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 9 of 28 7. The Inquiring Authority thereafter discussed the last charge based on the complaint of Shri Ram Lok Sharma and opined that in absence of any independent witness to substantiate this article of charges, the Department had failed to do the same. The petitioner, this time, responded to the said Memo by submitting his written representation dated 10.05.2005. After considering the inquiry report, evidence and representation submitted by the petitioner, the impugned dismissal order dated 16.01.2006 was passed as mentioned above. 8. Mr. Duggal, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, spearheaded two pronged attack to the inquiry report and impugned dismissal order. Insofar as the findings of the Inquiry Officer in the inquiry report are concerned, the submission of learned counsel was that the false complaints were filed against the petitioner, which were motivated and there was no evidence worth is named on the basis of which it could be held that these charges were proved. It was, thus, argued that the findings were perverse. As far as impugned order is concerned, the main plank of attack is that it is an unreasoned order and therefore, should be struck down on this ground. We refer to the following case law relied upon by the counsel in support of his submission: 1) Hero Vihoth (Minor) Vs. Seshammal [2006 (5) SCC 545] wherein it has been held that the meaning of “decision based on no evidence” refers not only to a case where there is total death of evidence but also refers to W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 10 of 28 any case where evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably capable of supporting finding. 2) Kuldeep Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors. [1999 (2) SCC 10] which is on the point that the findings recorded in domestic enquiry can be characterized as perverse if it is shown that no reasonable man could have come to those findings on the basis of evidence brought on record. The Court further held that if the findings are based on no legal evidence and the findings are mere ipse dixit or based on conjectures and surmises then inquiry suffers from infirmity of non-application of mind and stands vitiated. 3) M.L. Jindal Vs. D.V. B. and Others [2006 VII A.D. (Delhi) 333] wherein the issue dealt with is the non- examination of material witness vitiating the enquiry and preponderance of probabilities. 4) Anil Kumar Vs. Presiding Officer and Others [AIR 1985 SCC 1121], wherein the Apex Court held that the disciplinary enquiry is quasi judicial enquiry. Inquiry Officer is duty bound to act judicially and must record the reasons for conclusion by speaking order in the sense that the conclusion must be supported by reason. 5) Maharashtra State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education Vs. K.S. Gandhi & Ors. [(1991) 2 SCC 716] wherein it was held that the inferences from W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 11 of 28 evidence be distinguished from conjectures or speculation. There can be no inference unless there are objective facts, direct or circumstantial, leading to the other facts which are sought to be established. The Court also held that the standard of prove is the same both in civil cases and domestic enquiries. 6) Ministry of Finance & Anr. Vs. S.B. Ramesh [JT 1998 (1) SCC 319]. This judgment of the Apex Court deals with the minimum standard of proof in the following words: “13. We must observe that no serious attempt was made by the learned counsel for the appellants to attack the findings of the Tribunal rendered in the first part of the judgment. The respondent, who appeared in person, presented his case by pointing out the portions in the first part of the judgment of the Tribunal and also placed his written arguments. 14. It is necessary to set out the portions from the order of the Tribunal which gave the reasons to come to the conclusion that the order of the Disciplinary Authority was based on no evidence and the findings were perverse. The Tribunal, after extracting in full the evidence of SW-1, the only witness examined on the side of the prosecution, and after extracting also the proceedings of the Enquiry Officer dated 18.6.91, observed as follows:- "After these proceedings on 18.6.91 the Enquiry Officer has only received the brief from the PO and then finalised the report. This shows that the Enquiry Officer has not attempted to question the applicant on the evidence appearing against him in the proceedings dated 18.6.91. Under Sub-Rule 18 of Rule 14 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, it is incumbent on the Enquiry authority to question the officer facing the charge, broadly on the evidence appearing against him in a case where the officer does not offer himself for examination as a witness. This mandatory provision of the CCS (CCA) Rules has been lost sight of by the Enquiry authority. The learned counsel for the W.P.(C) No. 12496 of 2006 Page 12 of 28 respondents argued that as the inquiry itself was held ex-parte as the applicant did not appear in response to notice, it was not possible for the Enquiry authority to question the applicant. This argument has no force because, on 18.6.91 when the inquiry was held for recording the evidence in support of the charge, even if the Enquiry Officer has set the applicant ex- parte and recorded the evidence, he should have adjourned the hearing to another date to enable the applicant to participate in the enquiry hereafter/or even if the inquiry authority did not choose to give the applicant an opportunity to cross-examine the witness examined in support of the charge, he should have given an opportunity to the applicant to appear and then proceeded to question him under sub- rule 18 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules. The omission to do this is a serious error committed by the enquiry authority. Secondly, we notice that the enquiry authority has marked as many as 7 documents in support of