High Court · 2000

Petitioner :- Ram Moorat Saroj Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. Home C.I.S.F. New Delhi And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- B.B. Saxena,Brijendra Vikram Singh,Sharad Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties. This petition has been filed challenging the punishment order dated 20th June 2000, dismissing petitioner from service, as well as the appellate order dated 26th March 2002. Further, a prayer for reinstatement and all consequential service benefits has also been sought.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner, while posted as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was served with a charge sheet dated 20th October 1999, containing four charges. It is submitted that the charges related to an incident which allegedly took place on 14th October 1999, between 1300 hours to 2100 hours, with the allegation that the petitioner, while on duty, was found in an inebriated condition and when he was sought to be taken for medical examination, he absconded. Charge No. 3 pertained to the same date, at about 2035 hours, when the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with the Assistant Commandant Sumitra Kumar and also threatened him with a knife. Charge No. 4 pertained to earlier punishment orders, with the allegation that despite having been punished four times during his service career, the petitioner failed to improve his conduct.

3. It is submitted that due to adverse circumstances, the petitioner was unable to submit his reply, but participated in the inquiry proceedings whereafter inquiry report dated 27th April 2000 was submitted, finding the petitioner guilty of all charges levelled against him, leading to passing of impugned dismissal order, whereafter the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

4. The primary ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that none of the charges were established, inasmuch as the charge pertaining to petitioner being found inebriated during duty hours could have been proved only by a medical examination, and not by mere suspicion or smelling of petitioner's breath and since no medical examination was ever conducted of the petitioner, such a charge cannot be said to have been proved. It is also submitted that the allegation levelled also pertained to petitioner having assaulted two children of the same village, but neither the children nor any of the villagers were ever examined during inquiry proceedings. It is also submitted that despite an application having been made by petitioner for production of witnesses, no such witnesses were permitted in the inquiry proceedings. It has also been submitted that inquiry proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature, it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to have first examined departmental witnesses, and only after being prima faice satisfied of the charges levelled against petitioner, was he required to call upon petitioner to submit his witnesses. Such a procedure having not been followed vitiates the entire inquiry in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the appellate authority, despite recording a finding that neither the villagers nor either of the two children were ever produced during the inquiry proceedings, still upheld the dismissal order, and therefore the same is vitiated on account of ignoring material evidence on record. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- Sangram Yadav versus State of U.P. and others, 2022 (4) ADJ 211; Krishna Kumar Singh (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) versus Union of India and others, 2019(6) ADJ 121; Umesh Chandra versus State of U.P., 2019 (9) ADJ 48 (DB); Ravi Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, 2024(6) ADJ 278(DB); Sri Krishna Yadav versus Union of India and others, (2019) 1 UPLBEC 705 and President Nagar Panchayat versus Shyam Charan, AIR 2021 SC 4554, Kapoor Chandra Srviastava versus State, (2009) 5 ALJ 76; General Manager, Syndicate Bank versus B.S. N. Prasad, AIR 2025 SC 612 and Constable Awadhesh Kumar versus State (2024) UPLBEC 3025

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and transparent manner, which would be evident from the fact that the inquiry officer was changed thrice during the course of inquiry at the behest of petitioner. It is also submitted that that in order to prove the aforesaid four charges, at least 16 witnesses were produced by the department, who have clearly corroborated the charges levelled against petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the application preferred by petitioner for summoning of witnesses, dated 18th April 2000, but submits that neither any document nor name of any witness has been indicated in the application and the inquiry officer thereafter was compelled to indicate that despite time having been granted to petitioner, no witness was submitted for examination by him. It is also submitted that ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was provided to petitioner, which he did not avail himself of.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the charge sheet indicated four charges levelled against petitioner, primarily pertaining to the incident having taken place on 14th October 1999 whereunder charge levelled was that petitioner was found in an inebriated state while on duty. The second charge pertained to the aspect that while being taken for medical examination, petitioner absconded from his custody. Charge No. 3 pertained to the same date, at about 20:35 hours, when the petitioner is said to have misbehaved with the superior officer and had also threatened him with a knife.

7. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, it is the petitioner's specific case that the said charge could have been proved only by means of a medical examination, which never took place, and therefore the aforesaid charge has been proved only on the basis of assumptions and surmises. A perusal of the inquiry report with regard to aforesaid charge clearly indicates examination of Assistant Commandant Sumittar Kumar as PW4 to indicate that upon receiving information of the aforesaid incident, the said witness directed Constable Umed Singh (PW5) to take the petitioner for a medical examination. Statements of both PW4 and PW5 are on record, with PW4 corroborating the fact that he had directed Constable Umed Singh to take the petitioner for a medical examination, but during the course of such activity, petitioner escaped from the custody of Constable Umed Singh. The said fact has also been corroborated by evidence of PW5 Umed Singh.

8. Thus, on a combined examination of statements recorded by PW4, Assistant Commandant Sumittar Kumar, and PW5, Constable Umed Singh, it is established that petitioner was taken into custody and was directed to be taken for medical examination, during the course of which he escaped, and as a result, medical examination could not take place.

9. It is also evident from a perusal of the inquiry officer that the petitioner failed to cross-examine either of the two witnesses; documents on record, including the inquiry report, clearly advert to the fact that ample opportunity was granted to petitioner for cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses, which he failed to avail himself of. Such an aspect has not been denied by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and Ors., AIR 1968 1413 had clearly enunciated the law that any party to a lis having best evidence, either conceals it or does not participate in its production, cannot take advantage of such a wrong.

10. In the present case, in the considered opinion of this court, once petitioner himself, by his act of escaping, which is duly proved by evidence, failed to present himself for medical examination, cannot take benefit of his own wrong. It would have been in the fitness of things for the petitioner to have subjected himself for medical examination to disapprove charges levelled against him. Such a course of action having not been followed, cannot provide him with any advantage.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to the inquiry report to indicate that there were at least five documents submitted by petitioner to prove the fact that he was, in fact, suffering from epilepsy, due to which the said incident occurred. The said documents have clearly been indicated in internal page 20 of the inquiry report. However, a perusal of same clearly indicates the fact that except for document No. 5, which is a certificate issued by Rajkiya Ayurvedik Evam Unani Chikitsalaya, none of the documents pertained to 14 October 1999. The aforesaid document issued by the Ayurvedik Hospital on 14th October 1999 has also been brought on record, but does not dispel the allegation that the petitioner was in a ineabriated state.

11. It is also evident that, during the course of inquiry proceedings, the petitioner had specifically taken a stand that due to his condition of epilepsy, he was taken to the aforesaid hospital by his younger brother. However, it is material to note that no efforts were made by petitioner either to produce his brother, or even the examining doctor, who is said to have issued a prescription dated 14th October 1999. It is not the case of petitioner that the aforesaid prescription would come within meaning of a public document, the genuineness of which can be presumed.

12. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned, it indicates alleged misbehavior by petitioner with his senior official, along with threatening him with a knife. The said senior official, Sumitar Kumar, Assistant Commandant, was examined during the course of inquiry proceedings as PW4 and has clearly corroborated such a charge by his evidence. Again, it is noticeable that no efforts were made by the petitioner to cross- examine the said witness. The inquiry report has reproduced the statement of PW4 in extenso on internal page 10 of the inquiry report and has thereafter found the charge established against petitioner.

13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the department has clearly proved its case by means of documentary as well as oral evidence and despite opportunity having been granted to the petitioner, he failed to corroborate his story by any documentary or oral evidence.

14. It is a relevant factor that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force,and the standards of measurement of misconduct are required to be stricter than in the normal course since it would have a deleterious effect upon the disciplined force itself.

15. Amongst the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Shyam Charan (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly enunciated that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings in which in case charges warrant major punishment, then oral evidence by producing witnesses is necessary. The aforesaid proposition of law is obviously applicable in all departmental proceedings and it is evident from a perusal of the inquiry report that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved by oral evidence by producing witnesses by the department. In the case of Kapoor Chandra Srivastava (supra), it has been enunciated that initial burden is upon the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. The aforesaid proposition of law has also been clearly followed in the present inquiry proceedings, where the department, by the production of witnesses, has discharged their initial burden whereafter, petitioner was required either to cross-examine them or to have produced his own witnesses but has failed to submit either of the aforesaid.

16. In the case of Krishna Kumar (supra), it has been held that the aspect of a delinquent being on duty under influence of liquor is required to be established by examination of the doctor concerned and that there is some evidence to reasonably prove that the incumbent is guilty of misconduct and that a person of ordinary prudence must come to this conclusion on the basis of material on record. The aforesaid aspect has been reiterated in the case of Sangam Yadav (supra).

17. However, although it is an admitted proposition of law that a charge pertaining to the delinquent employee being inebriated during the course of duty is required to be proved by medical evidence duly corroborated by production of the doctor concerned but such an aspect cannot operate in a vacuum particularly when the delinquent employee, as in the present case, has gone to great lengths not to have himself medically examined. In such a situation, in the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid judgement would not aid the case of petitioner.

18. Learned counsel for petitioner has thereafter adverted to the case of General Manager, Syndicate Bank (supra) and Constable Awadhesh Kumar (supra) to submit that punishment must be commensurate with the quality of charges and should be interfered with where the penalty imposed is either excessive or shocks the conscience of the court.

19. In the considered opinion of this court, aforesaid judgements would be applicable in case punishment imposed is found to be excessive. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner, being a member of a disciplined force, was required to act in an according manner. As indicated herein above, the standards of conduct with regard to a disciplined force are required to be higher than in case of civil post. In view of charges levelled against petitioner, which have been found to be established, this court does not find the punishment either to be too harsh or shocking the conscience of this Court.

20. So far as the appellate order is concerned, a perusal thereof will indicate that the appellate authority has also considered all the relevant aspects, particularly, the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found established by oral evidence particularly of PW4 and PW5. Although the appellate authority has also adverted to the fact that no villager or either of the two children supposedly beaten by the petitioner were ever produced in the inquiry proceedings but in the considered opinion of this court, such a discussion would be immaterial in view of the fact that there was no such charge levelled against petitioner.

21. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

22. The record, which was directed to be summoned by this court earlier, shall be returned to the official concerned. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Petitioner :- Ram Moorat Saroj Respondent :- Union Of India Thru Secy. Home C.I.S.F. New Delhi And 3 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- Ramesh Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- B.B. Saxena,Brijendra Vikram Singh,Sharad Kumar Srivastava Hon'ble Manish Mathur,J.

1. Heard Mr. Ramesh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Sharad Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the opposite parties. This petition has been filed challenging the punishment order dated 20th June 2000, dismissing petitioner from service, as well as the appellate order dated 26th March 2002. Further, a prayer for reinstatement and all consequential service benefits has also been sought.

2. It has been submitted that the petitioner, while posted as a constable in the Central Industrial Security Force, was served with a charge sheet dated 20th October 1999, containing four charges. It is submitted that the charges related to an incident which allegedly took place on 14th October 1999, between 1300 hours to 2100 hours, with the allegation that the petitioner, while on duty, was found in an inebriated condition and when he was sought to be taken for medical examination, he absconded. Charge No. 3 pertained to the same date, at about 2035 hours, when the petitioner allegedly misbehaved with the Assistant Commandant Sumitra Kumar and also threatened him with a knife. Charge No. 4 pertained to earlier punishment orders, with the allegation that despite having been punished four times during his service career, the petitioner failed to improve his conduct.

3. It is submitted that due to adverse circumstances, the petitioner was unable to submit his reply, but participated in the inquiry proceedings whereafter inquiry report dated 27th April 2000 was submitted, finding the petitioner guilty of all charges levelled against him, leading to passing of impugned dismissal order, whereafter the appeal preferred by the petitioner has also been dismissed.

4. The primary ground raised by learned counsel for petitioner is that none of the charges were established, inasmuch as the charge pertaining to petitioner being found inebriated during duty hours could have been proved only by a medical examination, and not by mere suspicion or smelling of petitioner's breath and since no medical examination was ever conducted of the petitioner, such a charge cannot be said to have been proved. It is also submitted that the allegation levelled also pertained to petitioner having assaulted two children of the same village, but neither the children nor any of the villagers were ever examined during inquiry proceedings. It is also submitted that despite an application having been made by petitioner for production of witnesses, no such witnesses were permitted in the inquiry proceedings. It has also been submitted that inquiry proceedings being quasi-judicial in nature, it was incumbent upon the inquiry officer to have first examined departmental witnesses, and only after being prima faice satisfied of the charges levelled against petitioner, was he required to call upon petitioner to submit his witnesses. Such a procedure having not been followed vitiates the entire inquiry in terms of Article 311 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the appellate authority, despite recording a finding that neither the villagers nor either of the two children were ever produced during the inquiry proceedings, still upheld the dismissal order, and therefore the same is vitiated on account of ignoring material evidence on record. Learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments:- Sangram Yadav versus State of U.P. and others, 2022 (4) ADJ 211; Krishna Kumar Singh (since deceased and substituted by legal heirs) versus Union of India and others, 2019(6) ADJ 121; Umesh Chandra versus State of U.P., 2019 (9) ADJ 48 (DB); Ravi Kumar versus State of U.P. and others, 2024(6) ADJ 278(DB); Sri Krishna Yadav versus Union of India and others, (2019) 1 UPLBEC 705 and President Nagar Panchayat versus Shyam Charan, AIR 2021 SC 4554, Kapoor Chandra Srviastava versus State, (2009) 5 ALJ 76; General Manager, Syndicate Bank versus B.S. N. Prasad, AIR 2025 SC 612 and Constable Awadhesh Kumar versus State (2024) UPLBEC 3025

5. Learned counsel for the opposite parties has refuted submissions advanced by learned counsel for petitioner with submission that the inquiry proceedings were conducted in a fair and transparent manner, which would be evident from the fact that the inquiry officer was changed thrice during the course of inquiry at the behest of petitioner. It is also submitted that that in order to prove the aforesaid four charges, at least 16 witnesses were produced by the department, who have clearly corroborated the charges levelled against petitioner. Learned counsel has also drawn attention to the application preferred by petitioner for summoning of witnesses, dated 18th April 2000, but submits that neither any document nor name of any witness has been indicated in the application and the inquiry officer thereafter was compelled to indicate that despite time having been granted to petitioner, no witness was submitted for examination by him. It is also submitted that ample opportunity to cross-examine witnesses was provided to petitioner, which he did not avail himself of.

6. Upon consideration of submissions advanced by learned counsel for parties and perusal of material on record, it is evident that the charge sheet indicated four charges levelled against petitioner, primarily pertaining to the incident having taken place on 14th October 1999 whereunder charge levelled was that petitioner was found in an inebriated state while on duty. The second charge pertained to the aspect that while being taken for medical examination, petitioner absconded from his custody. Charge No. 3 pertained to the same date, at about 20:35 hours, when the petitioner is said to have misbehaved with the superior officer and had also threatened him with a knife.

7. So far as charge No. 1 is concerned, it is the petitioner's specific case that the said charge could have been proved only by means of a medical examination, which never took place, and therefore the aforesaid charge has been proved only on the basis of assumptions and surmises. A perusal of the inquiry report with regard to aforesaid charge clearly indicates examination of Assistant Commandant Sumittar Kumar as PW4 to indicate that upon receiving information of the aforesaid incident, the said witness directed Constable Umed Singh (PW5) to take the petitioner for a medical examination. Statements of both PW4 and PW5 are on record, with PW4 corroborating the fact that he had directed Constable Umed Singh to take the petitioner for a medical examination, but during the course of such activity, petitioner escaped from the custody of Constable Umed Singh. The said fact has also been corroborated by evidence of PW5 Umed Singh.

8. Thus, on a combined examination of statements recorded by PW4, Assistant Commandant Sumittar Kumar, and PW5, Constable Umed Singh, it is established that petitioner was taken into custody and was directed to be taken for medical examination, during the course of which he escaped, and as a result, medical examination could not take place.

9. It is also evident from a perusal of the inquiry officer that the petitioner failed to cross-examine either of the two witnesses; documents on record, including the inquiry report, clearly advert to the fact that ample opportunity was granted to petitioner for cross-examination of the aforesaid two witnesses, which he failed to avail himself of. Such an aspect has not been denied by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Krishnaji Ketkar Vs. Mahomed Haji Latif and Ors., AIR 1968 1413 had clearly enunciated the law that any party to a lis having best evidence, either conceals it or does not participate in its production, cannot take advantage of such a wrong.

10. In the present case, in the considered opinion of this court, once petitioner himself, by his act of escaping, which is duly proved by evidence, failed to present himself for medical examination, cannot take benefit of his own wrong. It would have been in the fitness of things for the petitioner to have subjected himself for medical examination to disapprove charges levelled against him. Such a course of action having not been followed, cannot provide him with any advantage.

10. Learned counsel for petitioner has adverted to the inquiry report to indicate that there were at least five documents submitted by petitioner to prove the fact that he was, in fact, suffering from epilepsy, due to which the said incident occurred. The said documents have clearly been indicated in internal page 20 of the inquiry report. However, a perusal of same clearly indicates the fact that except for document No. 5, which is a certificate issued by Rajkiya Ayurvedik Evam Unani Chikitsalaya, none of the documents pertained to 14 October 1999. The aforesaid document issued by the Ayurvedik Hospital on 14th October 1999 has also been brought on record, but does not dispel the allegation that the petitioner was in a ineabriated state.

11. It is also evident that, during the course of inquiry proceedings, the petitioner had specifically taken a stand that due to his condition of epilepsy, he was taken to the aforesaid hospital by his younger brother. However, it is material to note that no efforts were made by petitioner either to produce his brother, or even the examining doctor, who is said to have issued a prescription dated 14th October 1999. It is not the case of petitioner that the aforesaid prescription would come within meaning of a public document, the genuineness of which can be presumed.

12. So far as charge No. 3 is concerned, it indicates alleged misbehavior by petitioner with his senior official, along with threatening him with a knife. The said senior official, Sumitar Kumar, Assistant Commandant, was examined during the course of inquiry proceedings as PW4 and has clearly corroborated such a charge by his evidence. Again, it is noticeable that no efforts were made by the petitioner to cross- examine the said witness. The inquiry report has reproduced the statement of PW4 in extenso on internal page 10 of the inquiry report and has thereafter found the charge established against petitioner.

13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, it is evident that the department has clearly proved its case by means of documentary as well as oral evidence and despite opportunity having been granted to the petitioner, he failed to corroborate his story by any documentary or oral evidence.

14. It is a relevant factor that the petitioner is a member of a disciplined force,and the standards of measurement of misconduct are required to be stricter than in the normal course since it would have a deleterious effect upon the disciplined force itself.

15. Amongst the judgments relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner is the case of Shyam Charan (supra), in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly enunciated that departmental proceedings are quasi-judicial proceedings in which in case charges warrant major punishment, then oral evidence by producing witnesses is necessary. The aforesaid proposition of law is obviously applicable in all departmental proceedings and it is evident from a perusal of the inquiry report that charges levelled against the petitioner were proved by oral evidence by producing witnesses by the department. In the case of Kapoor Chandra Srivastava (supra), it has been enunciated that initial burden is upon the department to prove the charges levelled against the delinquent employee. The aforesaid proposition of law has also been clearly followed in the present inquiry proceedings, where the department, by the production of witnesses, has discharged their initial burden whereafter, petitioner was required either to cross-examine them or to have produced his own witnesses but has failed to submit either of the aforesaid.

16. In the case of Krishna Kumar (supra), it has been held that the aspect of a delinquent being on duty under influence of liquor is required to be established by examination of the doctor concerned and that there is some evidence to reasonably prove that the incumbent is guilty of misconduct and that a person of ordinary prudence must come to this conclusion on the basis of material on record. The aforesaid aspect has been reiterated in the case of Sangam Yadav (supra).

17. However, although it is an admitted proposition of law that a charge pertaining to the delinquent employee being inebriated during the course of duty is required to be proved by medical evidence duly corroborated by production of the doctor concerned but such an aspect cannot operate in a vacuum particularly when the delinquent employee, as in the present case, has gone to great lengths not to have himself medically examined. In such a situation, in the considered opinion of this court, the aforesaid judgement would not aid the case of petitioner.

18. Learned counsel for petitioner has thereafter adverted to the case of General Manager, Syndicate Bank (supra) and Constable Awadhesh Kumar (supra) to submit that punishment must be commensurate with the quality of charges and should be interfered with where the penalty imposed is either excessive or shocks the conscience of the court.

19. In the considered opinion of this court, aforesaid judgements would be applicable in case punishment imposed is found to be excessive. In the present facts and circumstances of the case, petitioner, being a member of a disciplined force, was required to act in an according manner. As indicated herein above, the standards of conduct with regard to a disciplined force are required to be higher than in case of civil post. In view of charges levelled against petitioner, which have been found to be established, this court does not find the punishment either to be too harsh or shocking the conscience of this Court.

20. So far as the appellate order is concerned, a perusal thereof will indicate that the appellate authority has also considered all the relevant aspects, particularly, the fact that the charges levelled against the petitioner have been found established by oral evidence particularly of PW4 and PW5. Although the appellate authority has also adverted to the fact that no villager or either of the two children supposedly beaten by the petitioner were ever produced in the inquiry proceedings but in the considered opinion of this court, such a discussion would be immaterial in view of the fact that there was no such charge levelled against petitioner.

21. Resultantly, the petition fails and is dismissed. Parties to bear their own costs.

22. The record, which was directed to be summoned by this court earlier, shall be returned to the official concerned. Order Date :- 6.8.2025 prabhat PRABHAT KUMAR High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench