AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Balakrishnan Nair, J.—The appellant was a Driver Head Constable in the Armed Reserve Police, Thiruvananthapuram. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against him on the allegation that he reported before the duty doctor at the General Hospital, Thiruvananthapuram, in an intoxicated stage. The said doctor recorded the above facts in the register concerned. But, the appellant erased the same to destroy the adverse materials against him. The said incident led to initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him. Ext.P1 is the memo of charges issued to him on 30.11.1994. He submitted Ext.P2 explanation on 1.12.1994. Since he denied the allegations against him, an enquiry officer was appointed and the said officer submitted Ext.P5 enquiry report. Based on the said report, the disciplinary authority passed Ext.P6 order dated 24.7.1997 imposing the punishment of barring one increment with cumulative effect for three years. He filed Ext.P7 appeal against the punishment order on 26.9.1997. That appeal was dismissed by the appellate authority by order dated 13.2.1998. He filed Ext.P9 review petition before the Government. That review petition was dismissed by the Government by Ext.P10 order dated 7.12.1998. Challenging Exts.P6, P8 and P10, the Writ Petition was filed. He attacked the impugned orders raising various grounds. The respondents filed a counter affidavit supporting their action. The learned Single Judge, after hearing both sides, dismissed the writ petition. Hence, this appeal.
The learned Counsel for the appellant raised the following points before us. According to him, the proceedings against the appellant are vitiated by violation of principles of natural justice. A copy of the enquiry report was not served on him and he was not given an opportunity to comment upon it before the disciplinary authority found him guilty. Regarding this point, the learned Single Judge found that the appellant does not have any such grievance either in his appeal memorandum or in the review petition. Therefore, the grievance not raised before the authorities below cannot be permitted to be agitated under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So, the learned Single Judge declined to accept the said contention. We fully endorse the said view taken by the learned Single Judge. Secondly, it is submitted that the appellate as well as the review orders are bald and cryptic. They are non-speaking and have not given any reasons. The said contention was also considered by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge noticed that those orders are not speaking orders. But, since the disciplinary action was initiated in 1994, the learned Single Judge thought that it is not just or proper to remit the matter. So, the learned Single Judge went into the records, adverted to all the materials on record and found that the action was justified. Though the orders of the lower authorities did not speak, the learned Single Judge has passed a detailed speaking order. Therefore, the said grievance also is not a ground to interfere with disciplinary action. Next, it is pointed out that the two doctors, who examined the appellant and gave certificates against him, were not examined. So, the charge against him was not proved. But, the learned Single Judge found that though those doctors were not examined, their certificates were produced and marked and other witnesses relevant were examined. By the principle of preponderance of probability, the charge against him was found proved. The learned Single Judge observed that the charge against him need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as in a criminal case. Therefore, the materials on record were sufficient to sustain the charge.
The learned Single Judge also noted that the appellant got a chance to examine witnesses of his choice. He was repeatedly asked by the enquiry officer whether he wanted to produce any witness. The appellant has chosen not to avail of that opportunity. If he wanted, he could have summoned the doctors from his side. So, the learned Single Judge found that non-examination of doctors was of no consequence. We fully agree with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. If, the appellant wanted to examine the doctors to disprove the case of the respondents, he could have called them as witnesses. He has not asked the enquiry officer to call any of them.
We find none of the above contentions raised is valid or sustainable. The enquiry was held in accordance with the rules governing the same and the appellant was given every opportunity to adduce the evidence from his side. The findings are made based on the materials on record. It is not a case of finding based on no evidence. In disciplinary proceedings, some evidence on record will be sufficient to support the findings. So, going by the principles for interference with the disciplinary proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, no ground is available in this case for the same.
In the result, the Writ Appeal fails and it is accordingly dismissed.