R.S.A. No. 874 of 2008 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH R.S.A. No. 874 of 2008 (O&M) Date of decision: 18.04.2009 The Director General of Police, Haryana, and others ....appellants versus Jaidev Singh ....respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present: - Mr. A.K. Gupta, Addl. A.G., Haryana. Mr. N.D. Achint, Advocate, for the respondent. *** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This regular second appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 29.11.2007 passed by the learned Courts below, vide which the suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for declaration to challenge the order of punishment as well as that of appellate authority, stands decreed. The plaintiff/respondent was chargesheeted and departmental inquiry was held against him, on the allegations that while being posted in Police Station Sadar, Gurgaon, in the month of October, 1998, he along with Constable Sat Narain was deputed on PCR duty. On the night intervening 26/27.10.1998, he demanded a bribe of Rs.500/- from Satish S/o Maha Singh Balmiki. When he refused to pay the bribe, the R.S.A. No. 874 of 2008 (O&M) -2- plaintiff/respondent slapped him twice and also gave fist blows on his chest. The allegation further was that Amar Singh, brother-in-law of above-named Satish, who was sitting in the same vehicle, gave bribe of Rs.200/- to the plaintiff, thereafter the vehicle was released. It was also alleged against the plaintiff/respondent, that he threatened Satish from making any complaint. Departmental inquiry was entrusted to DSP, Headquarters, and the plaintiff/respondent was found guilty of the charge, whereas Constable Sat Narain was exonerated of the charge. The plaintiff/respondent was ordered to be dismissed from service vide order dated 9.6.2000. The appeal filed by the plaintiff/respondent was also rejected. The plaintiff/respondent filed civil writ petition in this Court, which was allowed, as this Court was of the view, that the order passed by the appellant aurhority was non-speaking as well as cryptic. The opportunity was, however, granted to respondent/appellant to pass a fresh order in accordance with law. In pursuance to the order passed by this Court, the plaintiff/respondent was reinstated on 10.1.2003, and thereafter a show cause notice was issued to the plaintiff/respondent. On receipt of reply, punishment of stoppage of three increments with cummulative effect was imposed on 21.11.2003. The punishment was challenged primarily on the ground, that both the eye witnesses had not supported the allegations levelled against him and that the order of punishment was passed without following principles of natural justice. R.S.A. No. 874 of 2008 (O&M) -3- The suit was contested, wherein objections were taken qua maintainability of the suit, locus standi, and estoppel. On merits, it was pleaded that the punishment order was passed after following due procedure as envisaged under law. The learned Courts below on appreciation of evidence, have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the inquiry report was on the face of it perverse. There was no evidence whatsoever, on record, against the plaintiff/respondent before the Inquiry Officer. The statement relied upon in order to hold the plaintiff/respondent guilty was, in fact, recorded at his back without giving him opportunity to cross- examine those witnesses. Whereas, before the Inquiry Officer in cross- examination the witnesses had resiled and had taken a positive stand that the plaintiff/respondent was not an officer who had demanded bribe or mis-behaved with them. The learned Courts below, therefore, decreed the suit. The Additional Advocate General, Haryana, contends that this appeal raises the following substantial question of law: - “Whether the civil Courts exceeded their jurisdiction in setting aside the order of punishment by sitting over the decision taken by the departmental authority?” In support of the substantial question of law, the learned State counsel contends, that it is not within the jurisdiction of the civil Court to go into the merits of the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. In the departmental proceedings, person can be held guilty of a charge, on probabilities, and it is not open to the civil Court to sit in appeal over the finding and record a contrary finding to the one recorded by the R.S.A. No. 874 of 2008 (O&M) -4- authorities. This contention of the learned State counsel cannot be accepted. The learned Courts below have not gone into the merits of the allegations or have not substituted their opinion for the one recorded by the Inquiry Officer, as is contended. The learned Courts below on the basis of evidence on record have recorded a concurrent finding of fact, that the inquiry proceedings, and the findings recorded were perverse and based on no evidence. The learned Courts below further held that the procedure, as envisaged for departmental proceedings, was not followed, as the statements recorded at the back of the plaintiff/respondent were taken into consideration to hold him guilty of the charges. In the inquiry proceedings, there was no evidence to connect the plaintiff/respondent with the crime. It is always open to the civil Court to set aside an order, which is on the face of it is perverse and passed in violation of principles of natural justice. The finding recorded by the learned Courts below, therefore, cannot be said to be perverse nor it can be said, that the learned civil Court has reversed the finding recorded by enquiry officer, as contended by the learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana. The substantial question of law is answered against the appellants. No merit. Dismissed. (Vinod K. Sharma) Judge April 18, 2009 R.S.