IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13289 of 2011 Pramod Kumar Singh Son of Late Laldhan Singh, resident of Vilalge Gokhulpur, P.O. Bazidpur, P.S. Biddupur, Vaishali, Bihar …Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through the Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi 2. The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, CRPF, Complex Digha, P.S. Rajeev Nagar, Patna 3. The Deputy Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Sindri Range, Ranchi, Jharkhand 4. The Commandant, Central Reserve Police Force, 114 Battalion, Lidram Camp, Jalandhar …Respondents ----------- 02. 17.08.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India. Petitioner was serving as a Constable in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF). He was proceeded against departmentally for an allegation/charge that he allured one ex constable/sepoy and obtained graft amount in the name of securing job for his son. Accordingly, a departmental proceeding under rule 27 of the CRPF Rules was initiated as would appear from order dated 11.01.2010 (Annexure-3). He was served with article of charges on 23.07.2010. The petitioner participated in the departmental proceeding in which witnesses were examined and cross-examined. Relevant documents to prove the charge(s) was/were also produced. It is relevant to notice that the complainant, on whose application, the matter was taken up by the respondents-authority was also produced at the said 2 enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, on conclusion of the enquiry, submitted report wherein charges were found to have been proved. The disciplinary authority agreeing with the view taken by the Enquiry officer, issued second show cause notice to the petitioner enclosing therewith the enquiry report as would appear from the order dated 02.07.2010. Petitioner filed his reply on 7.7.2010. On a consideration of entire materials available on record, the disciplinary authority by order dated 23.07.2010 (Annexure-4) passed the final order whereby the petitioner was inflicted punishment of compulsory retirement. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner filed appeal (Annexure-5). The respondent-appellate authority by an order contained in Annexure-6 rejected the said appeal concluding as under: ÞtkWp ds nkSjku tkWp vf/kdkjh }kjk vihykFkhZ dks leLr xokgksa ds c;kuksa dh izfr o vU; nLrkost le;&le; ij miyC/k djok,W x, gSA Hkw0iw0 mifujh jked`iky iafMr }kjk dh xbZ f”kdk;r fn;s x;s c;ku ,oa tkWp fjiksVZ ls Li’V gksrk gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk mlds iq= dks ds0fj0iq0cy esa HkrhZ djokus ds fy;s gh mlds }kjk vihykFkhZ ds cSad [kkrs esa :I;s tek djok, x, gSA :i;s ysus dh ckr vihykFkhZ }kjk Hkh tkWp ds nkSjku Lohdkj dh xbZ gSA pWwfd 114 cVkfy;u esa HkrhZ laca/kh nLrkost miyC/k ugh Fks bl otg ls vihykFkhZ dks miyC/k ugh djok, tk ldsA ijUrq dsoy bl dkj.k ls vihykFkhZ }kjk fd;s x;s bl xaHkhj vijk/k dks de djds ugh vkdkW tk ldrkAÞ Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the petitioner filed revision before the appropriate authority. Said 3 revision application was considered and rejected by order dated 25.02.2011 (Annexure-8). The revisional authority in paragraph 5 found as under: Þ5- cy la[;k 710560497 Hkw0iw0 mi fujh0@thMh jke d`iky iafMr vius yMds dks dsfjiqcy esa HkrhZ djkus ds mn~ns”; ls ;kfpdkdrkZ cy la[;k 881141174 go0@thMh izeksn dqekj flag ds lkFk :0 1]60]000@& dk lkSnk fd;k FkkA tc jke d`iky iafMr dk yMdk HkrhZ ugha gks ldk vkSj mlus go0@thMh izeksn dqekj dks nh xbZ jkf”k okil djus ds fy;s dgk rc ;kfpdkdrkZ go0@thMh izeksn dqekj flag us VqdMks&VqdMksa esa eqy :0 62]000@& mls okil dj fn;k rFkk ckdh :i;s nsus ls euk dj fn;k A bl voS/k :i;ksa ds ysu&nsu dh iqf’V cSad tek iphZ (Counter Fail) ls gksrh gSA blls Li’V gksrk gS fd ;kfpdkdrkZ rFkk Hkw0iw0 mi fujh0@thMh jke d`iky iafMr ds chp voS/k :I;ksa dk ysu&nsu gqvk gSA vr% ,sls O;fDr dks cy esa cuk;s j[kuk cy ds vU; vuq”kkflr deZpkfj;ksa dks ,d xyr lans”k tk;sxk rFkk cy dh Nfo /kqfey gksxhAÞ Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no document was produced by the authority to show that the son of the complainant, namely, Ram Kripal Pandit was an applicant for the post of constable in CRPF. The defence of the petitioner that the aforesaid amount was deposited in his bank account by the aforesaid complainant namely, Ram Kripal Pandit was for different purpose has not been appropriately considered. It is the case of the petitioner that non-production of document relating to the application of the son of the complainant has caused prejudice. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that another 4 member of the force to which, as per the allegation, part(s) of graft money were/were refunded to the complainant has also not been examined. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India, on the other hand, supported the impugned order(s). It is stated that the complainant, namely, Ram kripal Pandit was produced at the enquiry and he in categorical terms narrated the manner in which the petitioner induced him to deposit the amount(part of which in his account) in order to secure appointment of his son in the force. The defence of the petitioner itself supports the allegation/charge as, according to the petitioner, part of the amount deposited by the aforesaid Ram Kripal Pandit was/were returned to him subsequently. It is also contended that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by three authorities on consideration of materials on record and, as such, this Court may not invoke discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. Learned counsel for the Respondent-Union of India is right in his submission that there is/are concurrent findings of guilt recorded by the disciplinary authority, the appellate authority as well as the revisional authority. On bare perusal of materials on record, it appears that there is no infirmity in decision making process causing any prejudice to the petitioner. The Supreme Court in the case of Union of 5 India vs. Upendra Singh (1994 3 SCC 357) has held that while exercising power of judicial review in such matters, the court has to ascertain and satisfy itself about the fairness of procedure adopted by the authority in concluding the proceeding. If there is any defect in such decision making process causing serious prejudice to the petitioner then only the court would be justified in invoking its jurisdiction. Materials on record do not persuade this Court to invoke its extra ordinary and discretionary writ jurisdiction in the matter to quash the order(s). For the reasons aforesaid, the application is dismissed. hr ( Kishore K. Mandal )