High Court
Case Details
WP(C) 832/2007 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. SREEDHAR RAO THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.D. AGARWAL
Legal Reasoning
One Mr. A.R. Mazarbhuyan was dismissed from service. He had filed Civil Rule No. 4314/97 before this Court challenging his dismissal. This Court allowed the writ petition directing a fresh enquiry. Said A.R. Mazarbhuyan tampered the certifie d copy of the order of this Court to make it show that he has been reinstated an d produced the same before the disciplinary authority. The person who was in substitute during his removal made an application for granting of the certified copy of the order which was issued and the said c ertified copy revealed tampering of the certified copy produced by A.R. Mazarbhu yan. That led to a disciplinary enquiry against him.
Decision
This Court took serious note and directed the matter to be investigated by the CBI. It is after the said order, A.R. Mazarbhuyan wanted that original or der in the writ petition should also be tampered so as to make it consonance wit h the tampered certified copy to cover up his crime. In that process, he appears to have contacted the officials relating to the Copying Branch of this Court. I t is the allegation of the petitioner herein that he was working as a record arr anger, which is category IV service and that he filled up the application of A.R . Mazarbhuyan for grant of certified copy and also introduced A.R. Mazarbhuyan t o one Dilip Das, a Peon of the Copying Section. It is said that Rs.200/- was pai d to Dilip Das for getting the certified copy. The charge for certified copy is Rs.100/- and Rs.100 was paid as an extra tip. Said Dilip Das, according to the p rosecution version, carried the original file of the writ petition to the Superi ntendent and got the certified copy ordered to be issued. Later on, certified co py was prepared and handed over to the petitioner by said Dilip Das. The CBI has enquired into the matter relating to tampering of certified copy and also the original order and filed a final report showing A.R. Mazarbhuy an, one Chandra Nath Deka, a Court official, and Shyamal Bezbarua, who is Superi ntendent of the Copying Section for prosecution. The petitioner and said Dilip D as are, however, not made accused in the said criminal case. However, a departme ntal enquiry was initiated against the petitioner and Shyamal Bezbaruah and Chan dra Nath Deka who is involved in the tempering of the certified copy in the firs t instance, however, he is not a party in the tampering of the original record. The petitioner was charged in the following manner: (cid:28)To, Shri Padma Nath, Record Arranger (Under suspension) Gauhati High Court, Guwahati. You are hereby directed to show cause under Rule 28 Part-IV of the Gauhati High Court Services (Appointment, Conditions of Service and Conduct) Rules, 1967, rea d with Article 311 of the Constitution of India as to why any of the penalties p rescribed in Rule 22 Part IV of the said service Rules should not be inflicted o n you on the following charges based on the statement of allegations enclosed he rewith: (cid:28) That during the year 1998-1999, while working as Record Arranger in he C ivil Rule (Disposal) Section of the Gauhati High Court, Guwahati, you filled up two applications dated 7.1.99 and 9.2.99 for obtaining certified copy of the jud gment in Civil Rule No.4314/97 and got the signature from the Advocate’s clerk o n the said applications. After obtaining the certified copies from the copying s ection in dubious manner and without making payment for obtaining the certified copies as per the prevailing Rules/procedures, you handed over the same to be be neficiary i.e. Shri A.R. Mazorbhuya. Both the certified copies of the judgment c ontained forged initial of the Hon’ble Judge of the Gauhati High Court at page N o.9 as the original page in the judgment was substituted by inserting a fresh pa ge in which operative part of the judgment was changed/forged. The above acts of yours amounted to failure to maintain devotion of duty and absolute integrity. Further, the said act was unbecoming of a public servan t and amounted to misconduct on your part. (cid:29) You should submit your written statement in defence within 15 days from the date of receipt of this communication and also to state whether you desire t o be heard in person and to inspect the documents, which are relevant to the iss ues under enquiry. (cid:29) In the enquiry, Dilip Das was examined as a prosecution witness for the High Court. The Enquiry Officer, on consideration of the evidence of Dilip Das a nd the attending circumstances, has found the petitioner guilty of the charge. T he Disciplinary Authority, accepting the report, has directed dismissal of the p etitioner from service. The petitioner, aggrieved by the said order, has filed t his writ petition after exhausting all departmental remedies. Learned Senior counsel Mr. D.K. Mishra has submitted the following circu mstances to assail the order of dismissal: (1) Regarding complicity of this petitioner, it is submitted that the petitioner had filled up the form for grant of certified copy and, later on, he has receiv ed the certified copy on behalf of A.R. Mazarbhuyan. The said circumstance by it self does not suggest conspiracy or sharing any common intention on the part of the petitioner along with other prosecuted accused in the criminal case. (2) In the CBI enquiry, nothing is found against the petitioner about his involv ement otherwise he would have been made a co-accused along with two Court offici als. (3) The evidence adduced before the enquiry authority does not suggest that peti tioner was involved in higher role apart from filling up the copy of the applica tion form and receiving the certified copy on behalf of the applicant. (4) The statement of Dilip Das before the CBI disclosed that petitioner only int roduced A.R. Mazarbhuyan to him and asked him to help in getting the certified c opy and paid Rs.200/- . In his evidence, he states that the petitioner never tol d him or directed him to take the original file for the purpose of preparation o f certified copy and that he (Dilip Das) did the rest of the things. In the above circumstances, it was strenuously argued that the involveme nt of the petitioner in the entire episode is innocuous and cannot be suggested or attributed with mensreal element of being privy to tampering of the original record. Per contra, Mr. S. Shyam, learned Standing Counsel, Gauhati High Court, strenuously submitted that the findings given by the enquiry authority are sound and proper and the petitioner who had no business to deal with A.R. Mazarbhuyan and introduce him to Dilip Das and ask him to help in filling up the form for c ertified copy and receive the certified copy on behalf of A.R. Mazarbhuyan. His conduct in making A.R. Mazarbhuyan to pay Rs.200/- to Dilip Das is a corroborati ng circumstance to attribute mensreal intention on his part. Further, the findin gs of the enquiry authority and the order of dismissal are sound and proper and does not call for any interference. On stern consideration of the submissions made at the Bar and on a deep scrutiny of the materials, we find that the role played by the petitioner as est ablished by the prosecution would only suggest that on behalf of the copy applic ant, he filled up the copy application and also introduced A.R. Mazarbhuyan to D ilip Das and asked him to help and he made Rs.200/- to be paid by A.R. Mazarbhuy an to Dilip Das. Said Dilip Das in his statement recorded by the CBI does not sa y that the petitioner played any greater role than what is stated above and on h is own he took the records and did help A.R. Mazarbhuyan in the rest of the proc ess of getting the certified copy issued. It is pertinent to note that the CBI, which enquired into the matter per taining to the tampering of the certified copy as well as the original, did not find any active involvement of the petitioner in the entire episode. The limited role played by the petitioner was only to the extent of filling up the certifie d copy application form for getting the certified copy and receiving the certifi ed copy on behalf of the applicant and further to say that he introduced A.R. Ma zarbhuyan to Dilip Das and asked him to help in getting the certified copy and m ade him pay Rs.200/- which includes extra tip of Rs.100/-. These circumstances a re not sufficient enough to attribute any mensreal element on the part of the pe titioner. It cannot be said from the said conduct that the petitioner consciousl y did all these things to abet in tampering of the original record. If it was so , definitely the CBI would have found material against him and he would have bee n made an accused in the criminal case. Therefore, taking the totality of the fa cts and circumstances into consideration, we feel that the order of dismissal pa ssed appears to be too harsh. The conduct of the petitioner in taking some active role in filling up t he application form and making an official to interact with a party applying for a copy application and asking him to pay Rs.200/- which involves an extra tip i s definitely a misconduct and that is not a part of the official duty. Although the petitioner cannot be attributed with culpable involvement of tampering, but he is guilty of misconduct of arranging to pay bribe. In that view of the matte r, the order of dismissal is modified. The petitioner is imposed with the penalt y of compulsory retirement. The writ petition is partly allowed. No costs.