Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 Date of decision : July 06, 2011 Ganga Ram ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ....Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal Present : Mr. DC Dhaula, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl.W.P. No. 123 of 2010 Mr. Surinder Gandhi, Advocate, for the petitioner in Crl. W.P. No. 190 of 2010 Mr. Sidharath Sarup, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana for respondents no. 1 to 3 in Crl. W.P. No. 123 of 2010 Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate for respondent nos. 4 to 6 in Crl. W.P. No. 123 of 2010 Mr. Shailesh Gupta, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 to 3 in Crl. W.P. No. 190 of 2010 None for respondents no. 4 and 5 in Crl.W.P. No. 190 of 2010 Mr. Gursharan Singh Kang, Warrant Officer in both the cases, in person. L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral) By this common order, I am disposing of two criminal writ Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 -2- petitions i.e. Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 filed by Ganga Ram and Criminal Writ Petition No. 190 of 2010 filed by Kulbir regarding alleged illegal detention of labourers at brick kilns. In Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010, Warrant Officer was appointed by this Court vide order dated 19.1.2010. In the other writ petition also, vide order 28.1.2010, Warrant Officer was appointed. Registry appointed Mr. Gursharan Singh Kang as Warrant Officer in both the cases. He submitted his reports in both the cases. Applications were moved in both the writ petitions for appointing another Warrant Officer making allegations against Mr. GS Kang, the previous Warrant Officer. Thereupon vide common order dated 29.4.2010 passed in both the cases, District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Punjab was directed to hold inquiry. Accordingly, District & Sessions Judge (Vigilance), Punjab (Inquiry Officer) held inquiry and submitted his inquiry report holding that allegations against Warrant Officer Mr. GS Kang were not proved. Against aforesaid inquiry report, one Pappu son of Majid has filed objections/reply challenging the said inquiry report. The objections purport to have been filed in Criminal Writ Petition Nos. 123 and 190 of 2010 and also in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2009. It is stated that Pappu was petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2009. However, the said writ petition is not before this Court. It is stated to have already been disposed of. Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 -3- I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file. As would be evident from the aforesaid, no objection against the inquiry report has been preferred by petitioner Ganga Ram of Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 or by petitioner Kulbir of Criminal Writ Petition No. 190 of 2010. Pappu, who has filed the objections, has no locus standi whatsoever to file the objections in these two cases. It may be added that the objections filed by Pappu have also not been signed by him nor the said objections have been verified nor any affidavit has been annexed in support of the averments made in the said objections. It is, thus, apparent that the said objections are completely misconceived and untenable. Even on merits, the objections cannot be sustained. The allegations against the Warrant Officer were that he accepted illegal gratification from the brick kiln owners in the presence of the petitioners and alleged detenues. However, during inquiry, neither petitioner of these two cases nor any of the alleged detenues appeared to support the said allegations. It is, thus, manifest that the Inquiry Officer has rightly concluded that the said allegations against the Warrant Officer have not been proved. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2009 also, Mr. GS Kang was appointed as Warrant Officer and his report was found to be false and another Warrant Officer was appointed who got the detenues released from brick kiln in that Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 -4- case. It was also submitted that Mr. GS Kang was appointed as Warrant Officer in some other cases also and he made similar reports in those cases. These contentions are completely irrelevant and misconceived. Even if report of Mr. GS Kang in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2009 was not believed, it cannot be said that his reports in the instant two cases are also false nor it can be said that reports in these two cases have been made after accepting any illegal gratification from the brick kiln owners. Maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus is not applicable in India. Moreover, Warrant Officer Mr. GS Kang has pointed out that counsel for the petitioner in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2009 himself stated on 30.11.2009 that the counsel was satisfied that allegations levelled against Sh. GS Kang (earlier Warrant Officer) were false and the same were withdrawn. Consequently, it cannot be said that report of Mr. GS Kang in Criminal Writ Petition No. 1404 of 2009 was held to be false by this Court. There is no material on record to depict that the Warrant Officer Mr. GS Kang has accepted any illegal gratification from the brick kiln owners or that he made false reports in these two cases. On the contrary, even replies filed by State in both the cases support the version of the Warrant Officer. In addition to it, the Warrant Officer had recorded statements of petitioners in both the cases as well as of brick kiln owners and some other labourers in both the cases and reports were based thereon. It is, thus, manifest that the reports of the Warrant Officer in these two cases cannot be said to be false or result of any illegal gratification. Learned counsel for the petitioner also contended that some Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 -5- other witnesses were not summoned by the Inquiry Officer. It was pointed out that Kulbir petitioner of Criminal Writ Petition No. 190 of 2010 was also cited as witness but he was not summoned. The contention is misconceived. Kulbir petitioner was not required to be summoned by the Inquiry Officer but should have appeared himself as witness if he wanted to say anything against report of the Warrant Officer. On the contrary, due to non-appearance of any of the petitioners and alleged detenues during inquiry, adverse inference has rightly been drawn. It was also contended that some other witnesses were also cited in the list of witnesses but were not summoned. However, learned counsel for the petitioner conceded that none of the said other witnesses was out of alleged detenues. On the contrary, the said witnesses pertained to some other writ petitions. Obviously, said witnesses were not relevant to determine the correctness of reports of the Warrant Officer in the instant two cases. There is no explanation why none of the petitioners or alleged detenues appeared during inquiry to substantiate the allegations levelled against the Warrant Officer. Counsel for petitioner Ganga Ram stated that Ganga Ram has since died. However, there is no material on record that Ganga Ram had since died and if so, when. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no material on record to substantiate the allegations levelled against the Warrant Officer. On the contrary, the witnesses examined by petitioners during inquiry had no personal knowledge about the instant two cases. For the reasons aforesaid, I find no merit in the objections preferred against the report of the Inquiry Officer nor there is any merit in Criminal Writ Petition No. 123 of 2010 -6- the allegations levelled against the Warrant Officer. As a necessary upshot, both the writ petitions are dismissed. ( L.N. Mittal ) July 06, 2011 Judge 'dalbir'