CWP No.14849 of 2006 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14849 of 2006 Date of decision:- 17 .04.2009. Naranjan Singh ...Petitioner Versus Punjab and Haryana High Court through its Registrar and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present:- Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for respondent No.1. Mr. P.C. Goyal, Sr. DAG Punjab for respondent No.2. JASWANT SINGH J. Petitioner (Niranjan Singh) has filed the instant writ petition for quashing of impugned order dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P-3) and order dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Single Judge of this Court and learned District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana, respectively and also for quashing of charge sheet dated 22.10.2000 (Annexure P-1) and has further prayed to direct respondent No.2 to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service alongwith all consequential benefits. CWP No.14849 of 2006 -2- The facts giving rise to the matter in controversy are as under:- The petitioner was initially appointed as Clerk in the Sessions Division, Ludhiana w.e.f. 15.7.1986. He was appointed as Additional Ahlmad in the Court of Shri H.P.S. Mahal, JMIC, Ludhiana on 19.6.1987. He was issued a charge-sheet under Punjab Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal )Rules, 1970 (I short Rules of 1970) on 22.12.2000 by the District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana containing the following articles of charge:- “1. That while you were working as Ahlmad in the Court of Shri Tejwinder Singh, the then Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ludhiana, received the complete file titled as State Vs. Jit Singh U/S 409 IPC, FIR No.146 of 1984, PS Sahnewal from Sh. Dharam Pal, the then Ahlmad in the Court of Shri H.P.S. Mahal, the then JMIC Ludhiana on 19.6.1987 but you did not hand over the Cash Book Ex. P-1, Ledger Ex.P-2, Register Ex.PB, Proceedings (Karwai) Ex.P-3, Entries Ex.P1/A, PB/1, PB/2, PB/3, P3/A, P3/B, P3/C, Receipt Ex.P4 to P45 to Shri Raman Kumar, the then Ahlmad in the Court of Shri Vijay Singh, the then JMIC, Ludhiana when you delivered the above said file to him. 2. That Shri Lakhbir Singh, the then Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Ludhiana vide his report dated 14.9.1998 has held you responsible for the loss of the above said documents. CWP No.14849 of 2006 -3- 3. That you deliberately with a malafide and dishonest intention concealed or destroyed the above documents which were in your lawful custody and thereby caused loss to the judicial record which amounts to gross misconduct, negligence, carelessness and unbecoming of a Government Servant.” Petitioner furnished his reply dated 24.2.2001, which was not found satisfactory and consequently Shri G.S. Saran, Additional District and Sessions Judge was appointed Inquiry Officer. The Inquiry Officer after conducting regular inquiry proceedings submitted his report dated 30.01.2002 holding petitioner (Niramjan Singh) guilty for the loss of documents being the custodian of the file during the period 19.6.1987 to 17.19.1988. After considering the report of the Inquiry Officer, the disciplinary authority vide its orders dated 24.3.2002 issued Show Cause Notice seeking his reply as to why punishment of dismissal from service be not imposed upon him. The petitioner was required to submit reply within 15 days from the receipt of said Show Cause Notice. The petitioner submitted detailed reply dated 27.5.2002 to the Show Cause Notice and also sought personal hearing. The disciplinary authority gave personal hearing to the petitioner on 4.4.2003 and during personal hearing the petitioner submitted that he has 17 years of service and a lenient view be taken against him. The disciplinary authority concurred with the report of the Inquiry Officer and came to the conclusion that during the course of inquiry CWP No.14849 of 2006 -4- the delinquent official has been given full and fair opportunity to explain his position and that the delinquency committed by the petitioner was of very serious and grave nature. He lost the important documents i.e. Cash Book, Ledger, Register, Proceedings Book and Entries, which were forming part of the judicial file titled State Versus Jit Singh, under Section 409 IPC, FIR No.146 of 1984, P.S. Sahnewal. These documents were back bone of the criminal case against Jit Singh accused against whom the charge was under Section 409 IPC which entails punishment which may extend to imprisonment for life. These documents have not been reconstructed despite best efforts made from time to time by the courts concerned. Loss of such important documents by the Ahlmad of a Court who is custodian of the files shakes confidence of the public in judicial system. Therefore, the Disciplinary Authority considered the penalty of dismissal from service commensurate with the grave and serious nature of delinquency committed by him. Accordingly, penalty of dismissal from service was imposed on the petitioner by the Disciplinary Authority under Sub Rule IX of Rule 5 Part III of the Rules of 1970 vide orders dated 21.4.2003 (Annexure P-2). Against the orders of dismissal, the petitioner filed appeal under Rule 16 of the Rules of 1970, which was also dismissed by the appellate authority vide orders 10.5.2006 (Annexure P-3) and the same are under challenge in the present writ petition. Upon notice of the present petition, respondents entered appearance and filed written statement controverting the averments contained in the petition. The main thrust of the written statement was that the inquiry was held in accordance with law; the punishing authority as well as appellate authority had given opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and CWP No.14849 of 2006 -5- as such the impugned orders are beyond the scope of judicial review. Petitioner filed replication to the written statement controverting the stand taken by the respondents. In reply to the preliminary objections, it was denied that the scope of judicial review of the orders passed by the punishing authority and the appellate authority upon a departmental inquiry is limited to the extent of providing reasonable opportunity of hearing/defending, observing the principles of natural justice during the proceedings or any other technical infirmity that causes prejudice to the delinquent official. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. Since the lost record has passed through the hands of various persons, the inquiry proceedings/reports thereof were called for. The facts which emerged from the perusal of record are as under:- The petitioner was working as a Clerk in the Sessions Division, Ludhiana w.e.f. 15.7.1986. On 19.6.1987, he was appointed as Additional Ahlmad in the Court of Shri H.P.S. Mahal, JMIC, Ludhiana to help Shri Dharampal, Ahlmad, Attached to the said court. It is stated that the record relating to a criminal case titled State Versus Jeet Ram in case FIR No.146 of 1984, P.S. Sahnewal under Section 409 IPC, was handed over to him by Shri Dharampal, Ahlmad. It is further stated that on 17.10.1988, at the time of transfer of the said case from the court of Shri H.P.S. Mahal, JMIC to the court of Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC, Ludhiana, the petitioner did not hand over complete record of Shri Gulshan Kumar, Ahlmad Incharge attached to the Court of Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC Ludhiana. In this regard it is pertinent to have a glance over the duties and responsibilities of various court staff in the subordinate courts. In this CWP No.14849 of 2006 -6- regard Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh has framed various rules and orders (contained in VI Volumes) known as rules and Orders of Punjab and Haryana High Court (for short High Court Rules & Orders). Relevant extract of Part-D (Custody of Judicial Record) of Chapter 16, Volume IV, laying down the procedure to be followed by the aforementioned Court staff at the time of assumption and relinquishment of charge of judicial records, is reproduced as under:- “ PART- D Custody of Judicial Records 1. The following orders as to the assumption and relinquishment of charge of judicial records shall apply to holders of the under- mentioned posts:- (a) Courts of District and Sessions Judges, Additional District and Sessions Judges 1. Ahlmad 2. Record Keeper (b) Courts of Senior Subordinate Judges, Administrative Subordinate Judges and other subordinate Judges 1. Ahlmads 2. Execution Moharrirs 3. Guardian Moharrirs 4. Readers to Administrative Subo- ordinate Judges (c) Small Cause Courts 1. Ahlmads 2. Naib-Sheriffs-in-charge of execution work. 3. Insolvency Clerk 2. When any of the official named in Rule 1, having custody of pending judicial records is transferred to another officer permanently, or proceeds on leave for a period of two months or more, he shall make over full and complete charge of the records in his custody to the official relieving him. 3. The relieving official shall, in the presence of the official to be CWP No.14849 of 2006 -7- relieved, check all the records leaf by leaf with the indexes attached thereto, see that no document is missing and then sign a certificate to the effect that he has carefully checked all the records made over to him, and has received the documents mentioned in the index attached to them. If any part of any record or any document is found to be missing, the matter shall immediately be brought to the notice of the Presiding Officer of the Court. 4. If any document or part of the record is subsequently found to be missing, the Presiding Officer of the Court shall immediately take action for its recovery or reconstruction. He shall also fix responsibility on the custodian if the document was on the index, or on the official whom the custodian relieved, if it was not on the index. 5. When an official having charge of such records is granted leave for a period of less than two months or is temporarily transferred to another post, those records only which are required for cases which are likely to come up for hearing in the ordinary course during his absence shall be taken over by the relieving official and the procedure laid down in paragraph 2 and 3 adopted. The remaining records shall be locked up, the key of lock being kept by the Presiding Officer of the Court. If any further records are needed during the absence of the permanent custodian, they shall be taken out and properly checked under the supervision of the Presiding Officer before being taken over by the temporary custodian. CWP No.14849 of 2006 -8- 6 to 9. XXX XXX XXX ” It is relevant at this stage to take a note of movement of the file in question, with averments/allegations made by the petitioner in the following tabulated form:- Date Court where the matter was pending/proceedings that took place Ahlmad-in-charge of the court concerned 05/03/85 Challan presented in State v. Jeet Ram in case FIR No. 146 of 1984 Sahnewal under Section 409 IPC in the Court of Shri R.P. Nagrath, JMIC, Ludhiana. Shri Ajit Singh 22.08.1985 Case transferred to the court of Shri G.S. Sran, JMIC, Ludhiana Charge of the case file handed over to Shri Mohinder Singh, Ahlmad. 23.12.1985 -do- Charge of the case file handed over to Shri Jaswant Singh, Ahlmad. 22.12.1986 Case transferred to the Court of Shri H.P.S. Mahal, JMIC Charge of the case file handed over to Shri Jeewan Singh, Ahlmad. January 1987 -do- Charge of case file handed over to Shri Dharam Pal, Ahlmad. 19.06.1987 -do- Niranjan Singh, petitioner appointed as Additional Ahlmad to the court of Shri HPS Mahal, JMIC and took over the charge of the file in question. Note:- No PWs were produced or examined during the period from 19.6.1987 till transfer of the case to the court of Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC, Ludhiana i.e. 17.10.1988. 17.10.1988 Case transferred to the court of Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC Charge of the case file handed over to Shri Gulshan Kumar, Ahlmad. 09/06/89 Statement of accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. By Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC. 11/07/89 Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC Gulshan Kumar, Ahlmad reports about the missing documents (Exhibits) On 11.7.1989 for the first time the missing of some registers in the aforesaid criminal case came to the notice of Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC, upon which present petitioner was summoned. CWP No.14849 of 2006 -9- Date Court where the matter was pending/proceedings that took place Ahlmad-in-charge of the court concerned 12/08/89 -do- Petitioner, Niranjan Singh, allegedly makes a report in the margin of order dated 12.8.1989 that no documents were received by him from previous Ahlmad, Shri Dharampal. It is case of the petitioner that documents Ex. P-1 to P-2 were put to the witnesses when the statements were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. These statements were recorded on 09.6.1989, when the record was in the custody of Gulshan Kumar. Therefore, it was sought to suggest that it is established that as on 09.6.1989 these documents were there, meaning thereby that it is Gulshan Kumar, who was responsible for the loss. If this line of reasoning was to be pursued by the Inquiry Officer/Disciplinary Authority then the plea of the petitioner that he did not receive these documents from Dharampal is belied from his own contradictory assertions. The loss of some registers came to the notice of Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC, Ludhiana on 11.7.1989 for the first time and on the report of Gulshan Kumar,Ahlmad of his Court to whom petitioner had handed over the custody of the file. Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC, Ludhiana summoned Shri Naranjan Singh and called his explanation. Later on, on 12.8.1989 he made a report on the interim orders sheet of the main case file to the effect that “I in this case did not receive the registers in charge and before me Shri Dharam Pal was the Ahlmad in the court of Shri HPS Mahal.” Thus, from the alleged statement recorded by the petitioner in the margin, it is clear that before 12.8.1989 he did not notice the missing record and bring it to the notice of the Presiding Officer in terms of aforesaid Rule 3 of Part-D relating to custody of judicial records, when it was initially entrusted to him by Dharampal, Ahlmad and it was only when CWP No.14849 of 2006 -10- he was called by Shri D.K. Sarpal, JMIC that he gave an explanation that he did not receive record from Shri Dharam Pal, Ahlmad. Even this version was found to be untrue. The learned Appellate Authority after re- appreciation of entire evidence has affirmed the finding that petitioner Niranjan Singh was not telling the truth by observing “In the circumstances, it is clear that the appellant is not telling the truth. Even Dharam Pal in the cross examination has stated “it is wrong that I had never handed over the documents along with the file to Shri Niranjan Singh”. In the face of this admission, the appellant cannot make any use of the statement of Dharam Pal that he did not receive the files from his predecessor.” The Disciplinary Authority on the basis of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer and after following the due process of law and the principles of natural justice has come to a conclusion that charges are proved against the petitioner and a punishment of dismissal from service is the appropriate punishment. This view has been affirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. The first and foremost question that we put into ourselves is whether in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, this Court should re-appreciate the evidence led during the departmental inquiry conducted against the petitioner, so as to issue a writ of Certiorari, quashing the impugned orders dated 10.5.2006 (Annexure P-3) and 21.4.2003 (P-2). The law is well settled for exercising power under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Bank of India and another v. Degala Suryanarayana, (1999)5 CWP No.14849 of 2006 -11- Supreme Court Cases 762. Para 11 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “Strict rules of evidence are not applicable to departmental inquiry proceedings. The only requirement of law is that the allegation against the delinquent officer must be established by such evidence acting upon which a reasonable person acting reasonably and with objectivity may arrive at a finding upholding the gravemen of the charge against the delinquent officer. Mere conjecture or surmises cannot sustain the finding of guilt even in departmental inquiry proceedings. The court exercising the jurisdiction of judicial review would not interfere with the findings of fact arrived at in the departmental inquiry proceedings excepting in a case of mala fides or perversity i.e. where there is no evidence to support a finding or where a finding is such that no man acting reasonably and with objectivity could have arrived at that finding. The court cannot embark upon re-appreciating the evidence or weighing the same like an appellate authority. So long as there is some evidence to support the conclusion arrived at by the departmental authority, the same has to be sustained. In Union of India v. H.C. Goel, the Constitution Bench has held: “The High Court can and must inquiry whether there is any evidence at all in support of the impugned conclusion. In other words, if conclusion follows that the charge in question is proved against the respondent? This approach will avoid weighing the evidence. It will CWP No.14849 of 2006 -12- take the evidence as it stands and only examine whether on that evidence legally the impugned conclusion follows or not.” Further as regards the nature of judicial review, it is not necessary to trace the entire case law. A Bench of three Judges of the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered its scope in its judgment in B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749. Relevant para 12 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “12. Judicial review is not an appeal from a decision but a review of the manner in which the decision is made. Power of judicial review is meant to ensure that the individual receives fair treatment and not to ensure that the conclusion which the authority reaches is necessarily correct in the eye of the court. When an inquiry is conducted on charges of misconduct by a public servant, the Court/Tribunal is concerned determine whether the inquiry was held by a competent office or whether rules of natural justice are complied with. Whether the findings or conclusions are based on some evidence, the authority entrusted with the power to hold inquiry has jurisdiction, power and authority to reach a finding of fact or conclusion. But that finding must be based on some evidence. Neither the technical rules of Evidence Act nor the proof of act or evidence as defined therein, apply to disciplinary proceeding. When the authority accepts that evidence and conclusion receives support CWP No.14849 of 2006 -13- therefrom, the disciplinary authority is entitled to hold that the delinquent officer is guilty of the charge. The Court/Tribunal in its power of judicial review does not act as appellate authority to re-appreciate the evidence and to arrive at its own independent findings on the evidence. The Court/Tribunal may interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer in a manner inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in dilation of statutory rules prescribing the mode of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached by the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. If the conclusion or finding be such as no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court/Tribunal may interfere with the conclusion or the finding, and mould the relief so as to make it appropriate to the facts of each case.” Further in this regard, reference can be made to State Bank of Patiala and others v. S.K. Sharma, 1996(3) SCC 364 that the interest of justice equally demand that the guilty should be punished and that technicalities and irregularities which do not occasion failure of justice are not allowed to defeat the ends of justice. Principles of natural justice are but the means to achieve the ends of justice. They cannot be persevered to achieve the very opposite end. That would be a counter-productive exercise. It is not the case of the petitioner that he was not given fair opportunity during the course of inquiry nor has he challenged the inquiry CWP No.14849 of 2006 -14- report, meaning thereby he is accepting the findings of the inquiry report in which the charges have been proved against him. Therefore, the challenge to the charge-sheet is not sustainable. It is quite settled that the Courts cannot give relief beyond prayer made in the writ petitions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Priya Ganguly v. University of Lucknow, 1984 Vol.1 SCC 307 held that where the petitioner had merely prayed for a writ directing the medical college to consider his case for admission, the High Court was not justified in going a step further and issuing a wit of mandamus directing the medical college to admit him to the post graduate course, as that amounted to granting a relief, which the petitioner himself had never prayed for. We are further of the opinion that the present case is not a case of no evidence or the view taken by the Disciplinary Authority suffers from any perversity while holding the petitioner guilty of the mis-conduct as sufficient material was/is available on record for it to take a view, it has taken and affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. Moreover, the mis-conduct committed by the petitioner while working as Ahlmad is of very serious and grave nature. He lost the important documents like Cash Book, Ledger, Register, Proceedings Book and entries which were forming part of the judicial file in the case titled State versus Jit Singh, under Section 409 IPC, FIR No.146 of 1994, P.S. Sahnewal and were back bone of the criminal against the accused, which entails punishment that may extend to imprisonment for life. These documents have not been reconstructed, despite best efforts. Loss of such important documents by the Ahlmad of a Court, who is custodian of the files shakes confidence of the public in judicial system. Therefore, the CWP No.14849 of 2006 -15- penalty of dismissal from service imposed on the delinquent-petitioner cannot be said to be disproportionate in any manner. In view of the above, we find no merits in the writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed with no order as to costs. (JASWANT SINGH) JUDGE April 17th ,2009. (JASBIR SINGH) vj JUDGE