1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.74/1997 Shish Ram Vs. UOI & Ors. Date of order : 26/8/2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri S.C. Gupta for the petitioner. Dr. M.S. Kachhawa for the respondents. ****** REPORTABLE This writ petition has been filed by petitioner Shish Ram aggrieved by the order of his dismissal from service dated 6.2.1996 and the subsequent order dated 15.10.1996 by which appeal filed against the said order was also rejected. Petitioner was recruited as Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (for short-`C.R.P.F.') on 29.8.1985. He was at the relevant time posted with 74 Batallion, which at the material time was located at Rohtak. He is permanent native of village Kulaud Khurd, Sikar district. He applied for and was granted leave for 50 days with permission to go to his native place for the period from 28.9.1995 to 16.11.1995. While he was travelling in a 2 train, a first information report was lodged by Government Railway Police Constable Jagdish Prasad at Government Railway Police Station (GRPS), Sikar against the petitioner on 2.11.1995 alleging that he was checking ticket from the passengers and has charged a sum of Rs.20/- from one Mohd. Abdul on the ground that he did not have any ticket for his luggage. It was alleged that the petitioner thus was guilty of offence u/s.170 of IPC. The petitioner was arrested in the said FIR at 6.00 PM on 2.11.1996. According to petitioner, however, dispute arose when some altercation took place between the petitioner and certain Constables of GRPS, which led to filing of false criminal case against him. Petitioner informed the SHO of GRP, Sikar that he was Constable in CRPF of 74 Batallion. He also informed his belt number and place where the Batallion was stationed. The SHO, GRP, thereafter, immediately intimated the Company Commander with wireless message on 2.11.1995. Offence u/s.170 of IPC for which the petitioner was arrested being bailable 3 one, petitioner submitted bail bonds and sureties and he was ultimately released on 3.11.1995. The petitioner was subjected to trial in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate (Railway), Jaipur City, Jaipur and he was honourably acquitted. When after availing the leave of 50 days, petitioner reported back to his duty, he informed his superior authorities about his arrest. He was told by them that they have already received the information from GRP Sikar by a wireless message about his arrest. Petitioner was however placed under suspension by order dated 24.10.1995. A charge sheet under Rule 27 of C.R.P.F. Rules was served upon the petitioner on 19.12.1995 on the allegation that petitioner involved himself under offence u/s.170 of IPC and did not inform the fact about his arrest to his superiors. He immediately submitted reply to the charge sheet denying all the charges. The enquiry officer however in his report dated 30.1.1996 held the charges proved against the petitioner and on that basis, the disciplinary authority passed the order 4 of his dismissal on 6.2.1996, which was upheld by the appellate authority i.e. Deputy Inspector General of Police, C.R.P.F., Chandigarh. Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that petitioner was falsely implicated in the criminal case alleging offence of Section 170 of IPC against him, whereas the fact was that there was a simple dispute between the petitioner and the Constables of GRP. An altercation took place between them, which ultimately led to false criminal case registered against the petitioner, in which he had to face the agony of arrest and subsequent dismissal from service, even though the trial Court honourably acquitted him. Mala fide on the part of the authorities of the GRP was evident from the fact that in this case first information report was not lodged against petitioner by Shri Mohd. Abdul, from whom, it is alleged that the petitioner extracted a sum of Rs.20/- on the pretext that he did not carry the ticket of his luggage but by Constable Jagdish Prasad of 5 GRP. The learned trial court found that the evidence produced by the prosecution was full of contradictions inasmuch as such evidence did not inspire confidence. Learned counsel referred to the judgement of trial court to show that the observations made in the judgement clearly indicate that petitioner was falsely enropped in the matter only because he picked upon argument with the member of GRP Constable Jagdish Prasad and Constable Bhal Singh. Shri S.C. Gupta, learned counsel further submitted that neither the above referred to passenger Mohd. Abdul was examined, nor any other independent witnesses or any other co- passenger was examined to prove the charges either during trial or even before the enquiry officer. It was argued that the part of the charge to the effect that the petitioner got himself involved in offence u/s.170 of IPC having not been proved even before the trial court beyond reasonable doubt, i.e. even by stricter standards of proof, this cannot be taken as proved in the disciplinary proceedings either. Moreover, 6 the remaining part of charge that the petitioner had not informed about his arrest to the authorities, also cannot be taken as proved against him because the enquiry officer in his report has clearly mentioned that intimation about arrest of the petitioner was received by the Batallion authorities through a wireless message on 4.11.1995, the very third day of arrest. Learned counsel referred to the statement of witness of department Shri Shiv Nath Yadav, the Assistant Commandant who admitted that such information was received by the Batallion on 4.11.1995 by wireless message. Learned counsel argued that the petitioner immediately when he was arrested on false allegation, informed the SHO, GRP, Sikar that he was member of C.R.P.F. He also gave his belt number and Batallion number and its location. It was only on that basis that SHO was able to send a wireless message to the Commandant of the Batallion. A fact which was already known to the authorities in the Batallion, was not required to be re- notified to them. Even then, the petitioner 7 when reported back on duty informed the authorities about his arrest and reasons thereabout. Petitioner had to thus pay heavily for the altercation which he picked up with the members of the GRP due to which he was dismissed from service way back in the year 1996 in illegal and arbitrary manner. He has suffered all this time the agony of being out of employment and disgrace of being a dismissed employee. Learned counsel also submitted that all these arguments were raised by the petitioner in his appeal filed before the appellate authority. The appellate authority has however dismissed the appeal by a perfunctory order without considering any of these arguments. The order rejecting his appeal is a non-speaking order and therefore, it is prayed that the impugned order of dismissal as also rejection of appeal filed thereagainst, are both liable to be quashed and set aside. Per contra Shri M.S. Kachawa, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the writ petition and submitted that petitioner being 8 a member of disciplined force was under an obligation to immediately inform his Commandant about the factum of his arrest and the fact that such information was already received by the Commandant of the Batallion by wireless message from the SHO of GRP Police Station would be immaterial in so far as conduct of the petitioner is concerned. Learned counsel submitted that even if the petitioner was acquitted of the charge u/s.170 of IPC in the criminal trial by the Court, that would not mitigate the gravity of his misconduct because the petitioner even after resuming duty on completion of leave period did not give any intimation about his arrest to the Commandant or any other authority in the Batallion. Learned counsel submitted that acquittal of the petitioner was result of inability of the prosecution to produce adequate evidence and which is why he was extended the benefit of doubt, but nevertheless the fact with regard to arrest of the petitioner and further fact that he did not himself inform about his arrest to 9 the Commandant by itself would be sufficient to justify penalty of dismissal. Shri M.S. Kachhawa, learned counsel further contended that petitioner being a member of disciplined force like C.R.P.F., a greater level of discipline was expected from him. Learned counsel also argued that the complaint, in fact, was made by Mohd. Abdul to the Constables of GRP, who then took the petitioner to the Police Station. It cannot therefore be said that no one was aggrieved by the action of the petitioner and that no complaint was made by Mohd. Abdul for illegally charging the sum of Rs.20/-. Learned counsel submitted that since the appellate authority had passed an order confirming the order of disciplinary authority, he was not required to have dealt with each and every aspect in greater details because it was clearly mentioned in the order rejecting appeal that he agreed with whatever was said by the disciplinary authority. It is therefore prayed that the writ petition be dismissed. I have given my anxious consideration to 10 the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Although ordinarily this Court in the matter of disciplinary matters interfere with the order of penalty only if it is shown that the disciplinary proceedings suffer from infraction of any rule or that there was failure of principles of natural justice but at the same time if the Court finds that the material on which penalty has been visited upon delinquent is such whereupon no person of ordinary prudence could reach the conclusion arrived at by the disciplinary authority, interference can be made, conclusions arrived at by such authority being perverse and erroneous. Conclusions so reached and any decision based on such conclusion then becomes arbitrary and unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The present case falls in the later category where I find that there was absolutely no basis on which the charges could be held proved against the petitioner or that he could be held guilty of the alleged charges. 11 The first charge that petitioner got himself involved in offence u/s.170 of IPC has been found disproved even in the criminal trial which he faced before the court where the findings recorded by the Court in trial shall have to be appreciated in the light of arguments raised by the petitioner before this Court that he was falsely implicated in the case only because he had an altercation with the Constables of the GRP travelling in the same compartment of train and that FIR was not lodged by the allegedly aggrieved person, but by the Constables of GRP. That aggrieved person was not even produced even as a witness in the trial, nor was he produced before the enquiry officer in the disciplinary proceedings. No independent witness who could support allegation against the petitioner was produced at either of the places. Even if the matter is examined from the stand point of second limb of the charge, that the petitioner did not immediately give intimation about his arrest to the Commandant of the Batallion, the charge 12 cannot be taken as proved against the petitioner because unless he would have given the information about his being a Constable with CRPF, his belt number, his Batallion number and the place where the Batallion was presently located, it would not be possible for SHO, GRP, Sikar to send the information about his arrest by wireless message to Commandant of the Batallion. The insistence of the disciplinary authority in the present case that such information should have again been given by the petitioner himself either immediately after his release on bail or when he rejoined, cannot be taken as an additional factor to hold the charge proved against him because the charge was limited to the effect that he in his capacity of being member of Central Reserve Police Force u/s.11(1) of C.R.P.F. Act did not intimate the fact of his arrest to his superior officers which amounted to suppression of material information. The enquiry officer even though has recorded a finding proving this charge, but at the same time and in the self same enquiry report, he 13 has also mentioned that the information about arrest of the petitioner was received by wireless message in the Batallion on 4.11.1995 which fact was proved by PW-1, PW- 2 and PW-3 and also from the preliminary enquiry report. What I find in this case is that the enquiry report has been prepared in a very cursory and perfunctory manner. Entire report has been completed in just one and a half page. This enquiry report appears to have been prepared in a hurried manner without the due application of mind to the evidence on record. No discussion whatsoever has been made about the statements as to which witnesses made what statement so much so that even the enquiry officer has not considered it necessary to give names of the witnesses produced by the department but has merely referred to them by their numbers and even when he made discussion about those witnesses by their numbers, he did not consider it necessary to discuss at least briefly as to what statement was made by them. The manner in which the enquiry report 14 has been prepared thus leaves much to be desired. Funtion of the enquiry officer being quasi judicial in nature, his report has to be speaking one. Not doing so would be opposed to one of the necessary components of the principles of natural justice. Giving reasons was necessary so that the delinquent, who is adversely affected thereby, may have an opportunity to rebut or challenge those reasons while approaching the superior authority, which in this case would be the disciplinary authority and thereafter the appellate authority. The disciplinary authority has also not satisfactorily dealt with the fact of the intimation already received by him i.e. Commandant by wireless message. When charge was only to the effect that the petitioner did not intimate the fact of his arrest to his superior officer, how possibly could that aspect could be overlooked, is difficult to appreciate. The disciplinary authority was also required to consider that had the petitioner not disclosed his identity with particular reference to his 15 belt number and Batallion number, how could it be possible for SHO, GRP, Sikar to send a wireless message about his arrest to the Commandant of the Batallion. The fact of such intimation is borne out from the statements recorded by the prosecution itself namely PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 including the Assistant Commandant Shiv Charan Yadav, who have all admitted that such wireless message intimating about the arrest of the petitioner was received in the Batallion on 4.11.1995, which is also evident from the discussion made by the enquiry officer in the report. The appellate authority has completed the mere ritual of deciding the appeal without dealing with any of the arguments raised by the petitioner. The order of appellate authority is totally a non-speaking order. For all these reasons, the impugned orders cannot be sustained in law. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to succeed and is accordingly allowed. The impugned order dated 6.2.1996 and appellate order dated 15.10.1996 are 16 quashed and set aside. Petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement. Keeping in view however the fact that this matter has remained pending before this Court for last 13 years, the petitioner is held entitled to reinstatement with only 50% of the consequential benefits although with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. Compliance of the judgement be made within a period of three months from the date its copy is produced before the respondents. (MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J. RS/