IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.5664-CAT of 2003 Date of Decision : January 10, 2011 Ajeet Singh ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. N.P. Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate with Mr. Gunjan Rishi, Advocate for respondents No. 1 to 4. T.P.S. Mann, J. By way of the present writ petition, the petitioner has challenged the judgment dated December 10, 2002 (Annexure P-4) passed by the Chandigarh Bench of the Central Administrative Tribunal whereby the Original Application filed by him against the order dated January 10, 2002 passed by the appellate authority, while negating all his pleas, was dismissed. The petitioner/original applicant was appointed as a Diesel Electrical Fitter, Grade-II in the year 1980. On the allegations of threatening and manhandling Senior Foreman (Mechanical) on 10.8.1987, the petitioner and others were subjected to departmental inquiry. On 1.2.1988, the disciplinary authority passed an order of punishment by removing the petitioner from service. The appellate C.W.P. No. 5664-CAT of 2003 -2- authority upheld the order of punishment. However, the punishment of removal from service was substituted by the revisional authority by making fresh appointment of the petitioner on the post of Pump Operator. The mercy petition filed by the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner challenged the order by filing O.A. No.526/HR/1996 which was decided on 16.10.2001 by directing the appellate authority to give a fresh look into the matter and to re-examine the same in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. Vide order dated 10.1.2002, the appellate authority upheld the order passed earlier and negated the various pleas taken by the petitioner. Aggrieved of the same, the petitioner filed O.A. No.361/PB/2002, which was, however, dismissed by the Tribunal by passing the impugned judgment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had not been granted adequate opportunity to examine the defence witnesses in the departmental inquiry. Moreover, for the act of threatening and manhandling Shri T.P. Aggarwal, Senior Foreman (Mechanical), only the petitioner had been punished by considering his case as that of fresh appointment on the post of Pump Operator (Skilled) whereas the other employees, who were also shown to have participated in the aforesaid act, were let off with minor punishments. In this regard he has placed reliance upon Sengara Singh and others etc. v. State of Punjab and others, (1983) 4 SCC 225. C.W.P. No. 5664-CAT of 2003 -3- As is apparent from the impugned judgment, the petitioner had produced one Surinder Singh, Driver of the vehicle in his defence and he was cross-examined by the Inquiry Officer. On the other hand, the petitioner had insisted for cross-examining Shri J.P. Singh, ALF on duty, the shunter and the driver of 34 Dn train. However, the same was not allowed on the ground that these witnesses were not relevant for the purpose of the enquiry. Moreover, none of these witnesses were initially near the site of the incident which had taken place at the residence of Shri T.P. Aggarwal, Senior Foreman (Mechanical). Therefore, the petitioner was not justified in insisting upon examination of these witnesses as they were neither present initially at the site nor having personal knowledge of the incident. On the other hand, the petitioner kept on insisting for examination of these witnesses with the sole purpose of lingering on the enquiry. From a perusal of the judgment dated 16.10.2001 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.526/HR/1996 earlier filed by the petitioner, it is clear that the witnesses had specifically mentioned during the departmental inquiry that it was the petitioner who was leading the group which assaulted Shri T.P. Aggarwal at his residence at 22.40 hours of 10.8.1987. For that reason the departmental authorities were justified in distinguishing the case of the petitioner from that of the other employees. In the case of Sengara Singh (supra), there was no distinction between the employees who had not been reinstated and about 1000 other C.W.P. No. 5664-CAT of 2003 -4- employees of police force who stood reinstated and criminal cases pending against some of them withdrawn. All the employees, numbering about 1100, had been proceeded against for participating in an agitation which was impermissible under the rules governing the discipline in the police force. On the other hand, in the present case, there was specific allegation against the petitioner of having led the group of employees which had assembled at the residence of Shri T.P. Aggarwal, Senior Foreman (Mechanical) and threatened and manhandled him. Therefore, no benefit of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sengara Singh (supra) can be extended to the petitioner. Resultantly, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) (T.P.S. MANN ) January 10, 2011 JUDGE JUDGE satish