IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5724 of 2001 PRADEEP KUMAR SINGH Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS ----------- For the Petitiner : Mr. Rajendra Prasad, Sr. Advocate For Union of India: Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocate Mr. Abhishekh Singh, Advocate -------- 7. 26.03.2009 Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the Union of India. The petitioner was a member of the uniformed discipline force under the CRPF with a sensitive posting in the State of Kashmir. For dereliction in discharge of official duties the petitioner was preceeded with departmentally when orders for his dismissal have been passed on 7.3.1997. Learned Counsel for the petitioner sought to persuade this Court with regard to the alleged illegalities in the proceedings visiting him with the order of punishment. This Court is satisfied that it shall be of no avail to the petitioner even if it be so. The extent of deviation and the prejudice caused shall still remain a matter to be considered. Be that as it may, it appears from the pleadings of the petitioner himself in Para 2 (viii) that he had filed a confession and made apology. The order of punishment also notices this fact. Once there was confession and apology by the petitioner the charges stood admitted. Admitted charges need not be proved. In departmental proceedings the proof is based on preponderance of probability and strict rules of evidence are not necessary. 2 The petitioner in his writ application has chosen to maintain complete silence with regard to his confession and apology to the charges. In fact, he has chosen not to bring it on record and now seeks to make a grievance that he was not given the opportunity to explain his confession. Once the confession and apology to the charge is admitted the issue stands clinched. Reference for the proposition may be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in ASIR 1972 SC 32 (Channa Basappa Basappa Happali Vrs State of Mysore). The matter related to an unauthorized absence of a Police Constable and dismissal on that ground after enquiry. The allegation was admitted but explanation was sought to be given. The Apex Court held at in the relevant extract at Paragraph 5 of the judgment ‘5…The Police Constable here was not on his trial for a criminal offence. It was a departmental enquiry, on facts of which due notice was given to him. He admitted the facts. In fact, his Counsel argued before us that he admitted the facts but not his guilt. We do not see any distinction between admission of facts and admission of guilt. When he admitted the facts, he was guilty. The facts speak for themselves. It was a clear case of indiscipline and nothing else. If a Police Officer remains absent without leave and also resorts to fast as a demonstration against the action of the superior officer the indiscipline is fully established.’ In 2007) 13 SCC 352 (Secretary, Andhra Pradesh Social Welfare Residential Educational Institution Vrs Pindiga Shridhar & ors), it was held that once the delinquent admitted the fact 3 that his mother was in employment when he secured compassionate appointment for the death of his father, the question of interfering with the order of termination on that ground for any alleged violation of the principles of natural justice did not arise. In (2008) 5 SCC 569 (Chairman & Managing Director V.S.P. & ors. Vrs Gopa Raju Shriprabhakara Hari Babu ) the delinquent was proceeded with for unauthorized absence. In his answer to the chargesheet he pleaded guilty admitting the charges but to give an unsupported explanation. The Apex Court at Paragraph 16 held as follows:- ’16. Indisputably the respondent was a habitual absentee. He in his explanation in answerer to the chargesheet pleaded guilty admitting the charges. In terms of Section 58 of the Evidence Act charges having been admitted was not required to be proved. It was on that premise that the enquiry proceeding was closed….’ The writ application is therefore dismissed Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)