IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 Date of Decision: October 26, 2010 Maan Singh …Petitioner Versus Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present: None for the petitioner. Ms. Lisa Gill, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 6. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? Yes 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by a Constable of Union Territory, Chandigarh, challenges order dated 18.2.2009 (P-16), passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench, Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Tribunal) dismissing O.A. No. 441/PB/2008, filed by the applicant-petitioner. The applicant-petitioner has also challenged order dated 18.5.2006 (P-8) dismissing him from service as also order dated 27.2.2008 (P-12), passed by the Appellate Authority dismissing his statutory appeal. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant-petitioner was appointed as a Constable in Chandigarh Police on 9.4.1991. In January 2005, C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 he was assigned the duty as Motor Cycle Driver with the Traffic Inspector, namely, Shri Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu. On 8.2.2005, at about 4.45 p.m. they set up a Checking Point on the road dividing Sector 31 and Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh. On 12.3.2005, a video clipping was aired on the Zee T.V. News showing that the applicant-petitioner had accepted ` 100/- from a truck driver who violated the traffic rule by coming into the ‘No Entry Zone’. The applicant-petitioner and Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu were summoned by the S.P. Security and Traffic. It is claimed that the Superintendent of Police threatened the applicant-petitioner that he would be put behind the lock up and a criminal case would also be registered against him in case he refused to accept the guilt. He has thus pleaded that due to pressure mounted on him, he admitted the factum of having accepted gratification of ` 200/- from two trucks. A perusal of the statement shows that out of ` 200/-, ` 50/- were donated to the Gurdwara, ` 100/- were paid to the Traffic Inspector and remaining ` 50/- were kept by him (P-1). He was placed under suspension, vide order dated 12.3.2005 (P-2). It has further been submitted that on the promise of pardon Shri Amitabh Dhillon, SP/Traffic and Security, obtained an affidavit of the applicant-petitioner on 14.3.2005 (P-3). On 16.3.2005, he filed an application in the shape of appeal for revocation of his suspension (P-4). 3. After conducting a preliminary inquiry, D.S.P., C.I.D., Chandigarh, submitted his report on 1.4.2005. Then the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, passed an order dated 25.4.2005 for holding a regular departmental inquiry under Rule 16.24 of the Punjab Police Rules, 1934 as applicable to Chandigarh (for brevity, ‘the Rules’) against the applicant- petitioner as well as Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu. Shri Om Parkash, 2 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 Deputy Superintendent of Police was appointed as Enquiry Officer. On 23.5.2005, the Enquiry Officer served a summary of allegation along with the list of witnesses and documents. As per the summary of allegation the charge levelled against the applicant-petitioner is that his action of accepting bribe of ` 100/- from the truck driver entering in the ‘No Entry Zone’ amounts to grave misconduct, dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a good police officer being a member of the disciplined force. For ready reference, the summary of allegation is reproduced as under:- “ It is alleged that C. Mann Singh no. 3292/CP, attached as motorcycle Driver with you Inspector Shivraj Singh Sidhu, was present on the road dividing Sector 31 and Industrial area, Ph-II, Chandigarh, in the last week of January, 2005 (evening time) where it is alleged that the checking of trucks was being done under the supervision of you Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu. One truck, which had entered ‘no entry zone’ was stopped by the said constable, who accepted a one hundred rupee note from him as illegal gratification for letting him off without challan. It is further alleged that some other trucks were also stopped by the said constable and allowed to go without challan for unauthorized entry to the prohibited area after taking money from them. The above act on the part of you both Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu (being supervisory officer at the time of checking) and Constable Maan Singh No. 3292/CP amounts to grave misconduct dereliction of duty and unbecoming of a good police officer being a member of the disciplined force.” 3 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 4. On 18.11.2005, the Enquiry Officer submitted his report holding that the applicant-petitioner was guilty of the charge levelled against him (P-5) along with the Inspector (who has filed a separate petition). Thereupon, while supplying a copy of the inquiry report, a show cause notice dated 22.12.2005 was issued by the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, to the applicant-petitioner to show cause as to why punishment of dismissal from service may not be imposed upon him (P-6). The applicant-petitioner replied to the show cause notice (P-7). On 18.5.2006, the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, passed an order of dismissal against the applicant-petitioner as also against the Inspector. The operative part of the order reads thus:- “ I have gone through the enquiry file, findings of the enquiry officer, relevant record relating to the enquiry vis-à-vis ground put forth by the delinquents in their reply in defence. Both the delinquent officials have been afforded ample and substantial opportunity to defend themselves during the conduct of departmental proceedings and the same have been conducted following due procedure under rules. The charges against them have been proved and are duly supported and substantiated by the evidence on record. It has clearly been established that they were allowing number of trucks to pass without challan on financial consideration and the proceedings were personally supervised by Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu. All this has been video recorded by the news channel. The collection of bribe under personal supervision of the officer has duly been established and the delinquent officials have not been able to satisfactorily rebut the 4 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 allegation either during the enquiry proceedings or in their reply to the show cause notice nor during their personal hearing. Various grounds taken by Inspector Sidhu in his reply to show cause notice are devoid of merits. There is no contravention of rules while passing orders to initiate departmental proceedings nor during the conduct of proceedings. Due opportunity of defence has been afforded to them and examination of only those defence witnesses has been denied which were not relevant to the enquiry proceedings. The allegation of malafide against any senior police officer or T.V. channel personnel are totally vague and without any evidence. The CVO (UT) Chandigarh instructions are not relevant to the facts of the present case. The contention that CD evidence is not admissible in the departmental proceedings is also devoid of merits. I have also applied my mind to the length of service rendered by both the delinquent officials and their claim to the pension. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the gravest misconduct on their part, Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu and Constable Man Singh no. 3292/CP are hereby dismissed from service with immediate effect. 5. Feeling aggrieved against the order of dismissal, dated 18.5.2006, passed by the Inspector General of Police, U.T. Chandigarh, the applicant- petitioner filed an appeal before the Home Secretary, U.T. Chandigarh (P-9). It seems that the said appeal was treated as a revision petition by the Home Secretary and after affording opportunity of hearing to the applicant-petitioner 5 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 the Home Secretary, Chandigarh Administration rejected the same vide order dated 27.2.2008 (P-12). The applicant-petitioner then filed O.A. No. 441/PB/2008 which has been dismissed by the Tribunal keeping in view the decision rendered by it in the OAs filed by Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu, vide order dated 18.2.2009 (P-16). 6. No one has put in appearance in support of the petition. 7. Ms. Lisa Gill, learned counsel for the respondents has, however, submitted that charge of accepting illegal gratification levelled against the applicant-petitioner stand proved in a regular departmental inquiry which has been held after following the Rules religiously. She has argued that even Rule 16.2 requiring to consider the length of service has been kept in view, inasmuch as, the Punishing Authority in his order dated 18.5.2006 (P-8) has expressly observed that “I have also applied my mind to the length of service rendered by both the delinquent officials and their claim to the pension”, but he deserved to be dismissed from service. Learned counsel has emphasised that when protector of law becomes predator then no leniency could be shown to them. She has argued that the findings are well based. Once the allegations are sustainable in the eyes of law then the Courts are not to tinker with the quantum of punishment awarded by the authorities. In support of her submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Narain Singh, AIR 2002 SC 2102. Her submission seems to be that the inquiry has been conducted by granting full opportunity to the applicant-petitioner and the Tribunal has analysed the whole evidence on which the inquiry report is based. Referring to para 17 of the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu, learned counsel submits that the Tribunal has 6 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 recorded categorical finding to the effect that it was not a case of no evidence. On the contrary, the Tribunal has found that there was sufficient evidence against the applicant-petitioner as also the Inspector. 8. Having perused the record of the inquiry and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, we are of the view that there is no room to disagree with the view taken by the Tribunal. There are specific allegations in the charge sheet against the applicant-petitioner that he accepted ` 100/- note from a truck driver as illegal gratification for letting him off without challan when he was on traffic duty with his superior Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu. The Enquiry Officer in his report has returned categorical finding that the applicant-petitioner while posted in Traffic Police laid a barrier (naka) on 3- BRD Road between Sector 31 and Industrial Area Phase-II in the last week of January 2005. The road is prohibited for heavy vehicles round the clock as officers of Indian Air Force travel on this road to Air Base, Chandigarh. The Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu took a chair and sat on it near the main gate of Gurdwara Industrial Area Phase-II whereas the applicant-petitioner started stopping heavy vehicles like trucks on the 3-BRD Road where entry is prohibited for such like vehicles. The applicant-petitioner would stop the truck, go to the driver and charged ` 100/- from a Sardar driver. He stopped many trucks on that road and let them off without taking the documents from the truck drivers and did not take the documents to the Inspector. The whole episode was telecasted on Zee T.V. by a reporter Shri Vishal Monga. The Tribunal has accepted the aforesaid findings in respect of the applicant- petitioner as also the Inspector Shiv Raj Singh Sidhu (who has filed separate petition which is disposed of by a separate order). 9. Before the Tribunal no procedural lapse prejudicing the rights of 7 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 the applicant-petitioner or violation of the mandatory Rules was pointed out. The principles of natural justice has been religiously followed during inquiry and no complaint could be made in that respect. It is well settled that if the findings are based on evidence then the Courts are not to act as a Court of Appeal and enter the area of re-appreciation of evidence to record a finding other than the one recorded by the Enquiry Officer merely because another view is possible. Such a course is not permissible in law. For the aforesaid proposition reliance may be placed on the judgments of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the cases of Government of Andhra Pradesh v. Mohd. Nasrullah Khan, (2006) 2 SCC 373; Apparel Export Promotion Council v. A.K. Chopra, (1999) 1 SCC 759; U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mitthu Singh, (2006) 7 SCC 180; South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Swapan Kumar Mitra, (2006) 2 SCC 584; and Commandant T.N. Special Police v. D. Paul, 1999 SC (L&S) 789. In view of the aforesaid settled legal position, it is not possible to find any fault with the findings recorded by the Enquiry Officer as approved by the Tribunal. Even otherwise, the charge of accepting illegal gratification is serious and it could not be argued that the punishment of dismissal is disproportionate to the charge. 10. Learned counsel for the Union Territory has rightly submitted that when the protector of law becomes predator then no leniency could be shown to them. In the present case the protector of law has been proved to be breaker of law. Moreover, it is well settled that in the absence of any violation of mandatory provision of the Rules concerning holding of inquiry it is not possible for the Courts to interfere in the quantum of punishment chosen by 8 C.W.P. No. 13332-CAT of 2009 the employer. In that regard reliance may be placed on the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Union of India v. Parma Nanda, (1989) 2 SCC 177. It has been observed therein that ordinarily the Courts or the Tribunal has no power to interfere with the punishment awarded by the competent authority in departmental proceedings on the ground of the penalty being excessive or disproportionate of the misconduct proved, provided the punishment is based on evidence and is not arbitrary, malafide or perverse. The aforesaid view has been followed in the case of State of Karnataka v. H. Nagaraj, (1998) 9 SCC 671. It is also pertinent to mention here that the applicant-petitioner would not be entitled to pension as per Rule 9.18, which requires qualifying service of 25 years. The applicant-petitioner has merely put in about 15 years of service and would not be eligible for earning pension in terms of the aforesaid Rules. Therefore, there is no room for us to interfere. The petition is wholly without merit and accordingly the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) October 26, 2010 JUDGE Pkapoor 9