IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN MONDAY, THE 30TH NOVEMBER 2009 / 9TH AGRAHAYANA 1931 OP.No. 37270 of 2001(J) -------------------------------- PETITIONER(S): ------------------------- G.J.THANGAMANI, CONSTABLE, CISF UNIT, CPT, COCHIN. BY ADV. MR.P.ALI RESPONDENT(S): ---------------------------- 1. THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, RCF COMPLEX, CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400 074. 2. THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE, SOUTHERN ZONE, HEAD QUARTERS, CHENNAI. 3. THE COMMANDANT, CISF UNIT, BHEL RAMACHANDRAPURAM, HYDERABAD. 4. THE COMMANDANT, CIST UNIT, CPT, COCHIN. R1 BY ADV. MR.P.S.SREEDHARAN PILLAI, SCGSC MR.JOHN VARGHESE, ASSISTANT SG MR.P.PARAMESWARAN NAIR,ASST.SOLICITOR R1 – R4 BY ADV.MR.T.P.M.IBRAHIM KHAN,ASST.SOLICITOR THIS ORIGINAL PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 30/11/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ORDER ON CMP. NO.61070/2001 IN OP. 37270/2001 DISMISSED 30/11/2009 SD/- S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1:- COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF ARTICLE AND MEMO OF CHARGES. P2:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION AGAINST MEMO OF CHARGES DTD. 12.4.99. P3:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF DW-1. P4:- COPY OF THE SPECIAL REPORT OF INSPR. O.HUSSAIN DTD. NIL. P5:- COPY OF THE ENQUIRY REPORT . P6:- COPY OF THE REPRESENTATION AGAINST ENQUIRY REPORT DTD. 20.7.99. P7:- COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER DTD. 13.8.99. P8;- COPY OF THE APPEAL PETITION DTD. 16.10.99. P9:- COPY OF THE APPELLATE ORDER DTD. 9.3.2000. P10:- COPY OF THE REVISION PETITION. P11:- COPY OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY DTD. 24.3.01. P12:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW-5. P13:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW-7. P14:- COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW-8. TRUE COPY P.A. TO JUDGE tss S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 37270 of 2001 ================== Dated this the 30th day of November, 2009 J U D G M E N T The petitioner is a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force. He is challenging disciplinary proceedings against him. The incident which gave rise to the disciplinary proceedings is an altercation between the petitioner and another constable, pursuant to which, both were allegedly injured and were treated in a hospital. The petitioner took the stand that there was no altercation between them, but both of them, while riding together in a cycle, fell down and sustained injuries. It is contended that the other constable himself submitted before the authorities that injuries were sustained in a bicycle accident while the petitioner and the other constable were riding together. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the evidence was not sufficient to come to the conclusion that the petitioner was guilty of assault on the other constable. The second contention is that copies of certain documents requested for by the petitioner were not supplied. Thirdly, he would contend that in the preliminary enquiry conducted by the respondents, the petitioner was not given an opportunity to engage a serving officer to assist him. 2. A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, in which, all the contentions of the petitioner are sought to be refuted. According to the respondents, the petitioner and other constable were o.p.37270/01 2 both guilty of indiscipline and both were proceeded against and it was in the interest of the other person to deny the incident, since otherwise that alone would be sufficient to hold him also guilty. It is further submitted that there was sufficient evidence adduced in the enquiry including a statement by the doctor who attended the petitioner, who deposed that the petitioner had told her that the petitioner was assaulted, which was the cause of the injuries caused to him. It is pointed out that nine witnesses were examined in the enquiry, on the basis of whose evidence only the conclusion of guilt of the petitioner has been arrived at. Therefore, the petitioner's contention that there was no evidence in the enquiry to find him guilty is unsustainable. 3. Regarding the second contention, it is contended that the documents requested for by the petitioner were not included in the list of documents produced by the respondents in the enquiry. More over, the documents requested for were the statements made by the witnesses before the police and since the very same witnesses were examined in the enquiry, with opportunity to cross examine them, the petitioner was not in any way prejudiced by the non-supply of those documents. 4. As far as the third contention is concerned, the contention of the respondents is that in the case of the preliminary enquiry, the report in which was not at all relied on in the enquiry, the petitioner is not entitled to assistance of anybody. It is submitted that the o.p.37270/01 3 petitioner was given adequate opportunity to defend himself in the enquiry, which included opportunity of assistance by a serving personnel. Therefore, according to the respondents, none of the three grounds raised of the petitioners are sustainable. 5. I have considered the rival contentions in detail. 6. As far as the first contention is concerned, the law is that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the findings of an enquiry officer in a disciplinary enquiry unless it is so perverse that no reasonable man would come to that conclusion. Here the fact that the co-delinquent supported the case of the petitioner that it was a cycle accident, does not absolve the petitioner from guilt in so far as other witnesses including the doctor who treated the petitioner to whom the petitioner stated that he was assaulted, sufficiently proves the case of the petitioner. In view of the fact that the other person involved in the incident was also proceeded against in disciplinary proceedings would discredit his statement. That being so, I am unable to come to the conclusion that the findings in the enquiry are in any way perverse. 7. Regarding the second contention with respect to non- supply of documents, I find that the only ground raised by the petitioner in the original petition is that the petitioner could not file a reply to the charge sheet because of non-supply of that document. He has no case that non-supply of document has caused prejudice to his defence in the enquiry. It is settled law that denial of principles of o.p.37270/01 4 natural justice as such alone cannot vitiate the enquiry. But the same should be coupled with prejudice caused to the delinquent. The petitioner is unable to explain to me what is the prejudice caused to the petitioner by non-supply of statement of witnesses who were actually examined in the enquiry itself. Perhaps the petitioner could have stated that he could have pointed out discrepancy, if any, in their statements before the police and before the enquiry officer. But the petitioner has not chosen to take such a contention at all. As such, he has not proved before me that he would in any way prejudiced by the non-supply of the documents. As such, I am not inclined to accept that contention to set aside the disciplinary proceedings. Regarding the last contention, I am of opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the assistance of a serving personnel only in the enquiry and not in the preliminary enquiry. The petitioner has no case that in the enquiry he was denied such an opportunity. That being so, that contention also does not hold good. The result of the above discussion is that the petitioner has not been able to point out any defect in the disciplinary proceedings against him. Accordingly, this original petition is dismissed. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge o.p.37270/01 5 S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== O.P.No. 37270 of 2001-J ================== J U D G M E N T 30th November, 2009