AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Kuldip Singh, J.—The petitioner through this petition has prayed for quashing of order/ notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 vide which the petitioner has been removed from service by respondent No. 2 on the basis of recommendations of respondent No. 1, quashing of enquiry proceedings including enquiry report dated 4.2.2004 and directing the respondents to reinstate the petitioner in service w.e.f. 5.6.2004 with all consequential benefits including seniority, arrears of salary alongwith interest at the rate of 12% per annum.
The pleaded case of the petitioner is that one K.C. Sadyal was posted as Superintendent of Police at Una, who had been secretly monitoring the activities, functioning of Judicial Officers and their staff. The petitioner wrote a letter dated 3.10.1990 Annexure P-1 to K.C. Sadyal asking him on whose instance he was monitoring the functioning and supervising the Judicial Officers and their staff, who replied vide letter dated 8.10.1990 Annexure P-2 and had shown his regrets but tried to explain that the information was required by District & Sessions Judge, Una. K.C. Sadyal had the impression that he had been let down and as such he was carrying grudge against the petitioner.
K.C. Sadyal was later on promoted as Dy. Inspector General of Police and was posted at Dharamshala. Karan Sadyal minor son of K.C. Sadyal was studying in Dalhousie Public School, Dalhousie and was a boarder. One Maninder Vir had estranged relations with his wife Deepa Singh, Advocate, who filed a complaint against the petitioner subsequently, was the local guardian of Karan Sadyal. K.C. Sadyal was having close family relations with Maninder Vir and helped him in lodging a false rapat on 30.11.2002 against the petitioner through his minor son. K.C. Sadyal also had family relations with Raja Brijinder Singh of Princely State Chamba, whose wife Asha Kumari was a powerful minister in H.P. and at the relevant time was State Minister of Higher Education in Himachal Pradesh.
The petitioner remained posted at Dalhousie from August 1996 to May 1999. A public interest Civil Suit No. 42 of 1997 was filed through Deepa Singh, Advocate with the allegations that Asha Kumari and Raja Brijinder Singh had got mutated in their favour huge property of the State by manipulation. Raja Brijinder Singh and Asha Kumari exerted a great pressure on the petitioner to decide the suit in their favour, they tried to approach the petitioner through his wife Lalita Singh, who was Gazetted Officer in Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time and was working as Child Development and Project Officer, Chowari. The wife of the petitioner refused to oblige Raja Brijinder Singh and Asha Kumari. She was harassed, suspended and charge-sheeted on frivolous grounds but later on was exonerated.
The petitioner and his family members were threatened after the institution of the aforesaid suit through anonymous calls. An attempt was made on the life of the petitioner when he was intentionally hit in a vehicular accident in July 1997. The petitioner and his son sustained serious injuries but had a miraculous escape. They failed to eliminate the petitioner, the rivals of the petitioner started writing anonymous and false complaints against the petitioner to the High Court. The petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case and evidence on record decreed Civil Suit No. 42 of 1997 on 14.5.1998. In appeal, the suit was remanded back and in May 2004 it was dismissed in default in connivance with advocate Deepa Singh. 6. On the basis of judgement dated 14.5.1998, an FIR No. 3 of 2001 was registered under Sections 218, 420, 120-B, 467, 468, 471 IPC and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act against Asha Kumari, Brijinder Singh and some others and the case is pending before the Sessions Judge, Chamba. In view of bold and fearless decision taken by the petitioner he was victimized.
The petitioner was falsely involved in a departmental inquiry by conspiring and alleging false complaints against him. The petitioner was placed under suspension on the ground that disciplinary proceedings were contemplated against him vide order dated 24.12.2002 Annexure P-4. the petitioner was charge-sheeted on 8.8.2003 vide Annexure P-5 and as many as seven charges were leveled against him. The petitioner submitted his reply Annexure P-6 to the charge-sheet.
The Inquiring Authority and Presenting Officer were appointed. The Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in a wholly illegal and arbitrary manner in violation of Rules, settled proposition of natural justice. The petitioner even filed an application dated 31.12.2003 Annexure P-7 to change the Inquiry Officer but his request was turned down on 2.1.2004 vide Annexure P-8. The petitioner due to paucity of time could not file review application before the Reviewing Authority as per instructions issued under the Rules against the order of Disciplinary Authority.
The Presenting Officer had filed an application for permission to lead additional evidence of witnesses namely Janesh Mahajan, G.S. Sawney, Sidharath, Ajit Singh and J.B. Singh, who were not included in the list of witnesses in the charge-sheet. The Inquiring Authority allowed the additional evidence application on 17.11.2003 in an illegal manner. The Presenting Officer on 3.12.2003 closed his evidence and the petitioner was required to lead his evidence. On 22.12.2003 the petitioner had concluded his evidence and left the office of Inquiring Authority. The Presenting Officer by sending an application through his staff member tendered some additional documents Ex. P2/A and passenger manifest Ex. P48 for placing on record, which were not in the list of documents supplied to the petitioner alongwith charge-sheet. The Inquiring Authority arbitrarily allowed taking on record the aforesaid documents in absence of the petitioner. On 26.12.2003, the Presenting Officer filed an application for placing on record Ex. P4/A, Ex. P7/A, Ex. P11/A to Ex. P13/A on the ground that said documents are the certified copies of original. The petitioner had opposed the said application, but the Inquiring Authority allowed the said documents to be taken on record. On 27.12.2003, the petitioner by filing an application Annexure P-9 had requested for reviewing the order dated 22.12.2003 whereby aforesaid documents were wrongly taken on record. The Inquiring Authority on 27.12.2003 had wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner.
The petitioner also filed an application dated 27.12.2003 Annexure P-12 for reviewing the order dated 26.12.2003 but the Inquiring Authority rejected that application also. The petitioner filed yet another application on 27.12.2003 Annexure P-14 for supplying copies of documents Ex. P-42 to Ex. P-45, Ex. P-46, Ex.P4/A to Ex.P7/A, Ex. P11/A to Ex.P13/A. The Inquiring Authority allowed the said application. The Inquiring Authority had again allowed the presenting side to fill up the gaps and lacunas in the evidence by permitting the presenting side to place on record various new documents without their formal proof.
On 3.1.2004 the inquiry proceedings were fixed for final arguments and on that date the Presenting Officer moved yet another application to place on record alleged application for visa submitted by the petitioner at Bangkok on 10.12.2002 alongwith its covering letter dated 30.12.2003 from Royal Thai Embassy New Delhi. These documents were not included in the list of documents supplied to the petitioner alongwith the charge-sheet. The Inquiring Officer allowed the said application and the documents were placed on record as Ex. P-49 and Ex. P-50 vide order dated 3.1.2004 Annexure P-15.
The petitioner had submitted written arguments. The Inquiring Authority submitted inquiry report dated 4.2.2004. The respondent No. 1 on 26.2.2004 had invited written representation of petitioner to inquiry report. The petitioner had filed detailed representation dated 31.3.2004 Annexure P-17 in which request of personal hearing was made. The respondent No. 1 had communicated to petitioner a notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 vide which on the basis of recommendations of Full Court Meeting dated 7.4.2004 the petitioner was removed from service.
The petitioner had submitted a representation dated 1.7.2004 Annexure P-19 to respondent No. 1 seeking the copy of proceedings of Full Court Meeting held on 7.4.2004. The respondent No. 1 on 22.7.2004 Annexure P-20 had rejected the request of the petitioner to supply the proceedings of Full Court Meeting held on 7.4.2004. The petitioner believes that his comments on the inquiry report were not properly considered while recommending the penalty of removal from service on 7.4.2004. The Disciplinary Authority under rules 15 and 17 of CCA Rules and instructions issued there under has legal obligation to issue self contained and speaking orders in recording its findings on each article of charge while considering the representation against the inquiry report and was also required to supply the copy of findings to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority had not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner while accepting the inquiry report and imposing penalty of removal from service.
The petitioner has challenged the impugned notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 on the grounds that Annexure P-18 is not a speaking order. It has been passed on the basis of recommendations of the High Court. There is no independent application of mind by respondent No. 2. The proceedings of Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 were not supplied to the petitioner who believes that comments submitted by him against the inquiry report were not considered, which has caused serious prejudice to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority is required to pass a speaking order and also required to supply copy of the same under Rule 17 to the petitioner and thus the impugned notification is illegal. The Inquiring Authority has violated sub-rule 15 of Rule 14. Many documents were taken on record by Inquiring Authority in violation of sub-rule 15 of Rule 14. The report of Inquiring Authority is based on total misreading of evidence and the findings recorded are perverse. The documents Ex. P42 to Ex. P-50 were wrongly taken on record and exhibited.
The Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in a biased and prejudiced manner. The complainant was permitted to assist the Presenting Officer, the presenting side documents were taken on record even after the closure of the evidence. The Inquiring Authority did not allow the petitioner to file reply to the application of Presenting Officer dated 26.12.2003. The review application was wrongly rejected on27.12.2003. The written arguments submitted before the Inquiring Authority were not considered. The copies of the statements of most of the witnesses were not supplied at the proper time to the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority did not provide appropriate opportunity to lead defence evidence. The Inquiring Authority had wrongly allowed recording of additional evidence of PW J.B. Singh and PW Sidharath etc. The petitioner was not afforded an opportunity of personal hearing by the Disciplinary Authority both at the stages of considering his reply to charge-sheet dated 8.8.2003 and also at final stage whereby his comments to the inquiry report were sought. The findings of guilt recorded by the Inquiring Authority are not supported by the evidence on record. The Inquiring Authority has drawn wrong presumption from the evidence on record. The respondent No. 1 had wrongly rejected the application of the petitioner for changing the Inquiring Authority.
The respondent No. 1 has contested the petition by filing the reply in which preliminary objection has been taken that petitioner has not approached the court with clean hands as he has suppressed material facts and, therefore, the petition is not maintainable and deserves dismissal. It has been denied that complaint against the petitioner was falsely made by Maninder Vir at the instance of K.C. Sadyal, Superintendent of Police, Una, who was later on promoted as Dy. Inspector General of Police, Dharamshala. The petitioner has been removed from service after holding regular inquiry in accordance with law. It has been denied that petitioner has been victimized by respondents due to his having decided a Civil Suit against Asha Kumari and others. It has been denied that proceedings were initiated against the petitioner illegally on the basis of false complaints. It has been denied that Inquiring Authority while conducting the inquiry has acted in illegal and arbitrary manner as well as in violation and settled propositions of law. The allegation that Inquiring Authority has acted in a biased manner with a view to implicate the petitioner has also been denied.
The petitioner while posted as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate, Dalhousie during the period 13.8.1996 to 11.6.1999 and subsequently as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali w.e.f. 21.6.1999 to 25.12.2002 was having illicit relations with lady lawyer Deepa Singh of Dalhousie. As Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jawali, the petitioner had applied for leave from 9.12.2002 to 22.12.2002 on the pretext that he was sick but actually he went to Thailand alongwith Deepa Singh on 10.12.2002 and both of them had returned to India on 22.12.2002. The petitioner did not obtain prior permission of the competent authority for going to Thailand. A telegram Annexure R1/A addressed to Chief Justice was received in the Registry of respondent No. 1. On receipt of telegram Annexure R1/A, the matter was processed further and the Full Court of respondent No. 1 in its meeting held on 24.12.2002 after due application of mind had ordered to initiate departmental proceedings against the petitioner and also placed him under suspension. The petitioner was charge-sheeted vide Annexure P-5. The petitioner filed his reply Annexure P-6 and denied all the articles of charges. The Full Court of respondent No. 1 after due application of mind had decided to hold departmental inquiry against the petitioner. The application of the petitioner for changing the Inquiring authority was considered and rejected after due application of mind. The Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in accordance with law. It is denied that additional evidence was allowed to fill up the gaps and lacunas left in the inquiry.
The documents Ex. P2/A and Ex. P-48 were tendered in evidence by the Presenting Officer on 22.12.2003 in presence of the petitioner and not behind his back. The application Annexure P-9 filed by the petitioner for reviewing the order for taking on record Ex. P2/A and Ex. P48 was rightly rejected by the Inquiring Authority. The documents Ex. P4/A, Ex. P7/A and P11/A to Ex. P13/A were filed by the Presenting Officer before the Inquiring Authority, which were the certified copies of the documents already on record. The Inquiring Authority in these circumstances has committed no wrong in accepting the application while taking on record such documents. The documents were taken on record after hearing the petitioner, therefore, review application Annexure P-12 was rightly rejected by the Inquiring Authority vide Annexure P-13.
Some documents were not relied upon earlier on behalf of the Disciplinary Authority, therefore, an application for leading additional evidence was filed for placing those documents on record before the Inquiring Authority, who after considering the application allowed the same in accordance with law. This in no way amounts to fill up the lacunas left in the case of Disciplinary Authority. The procedure adopted by the Inquiring Authority to produce the documents in evidence is in accordance with sub-rule 15 of Rule 14 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965. The Inquiring Authority has committed no illegality in taking on record documents Ex. P-49 and Ex. P-50 vide order dated 3.1.2004 Annexure P-15.
The written arguments Annexure P-16 filed by the petitioner were considered by the Inquiry Officer. The Inquiring Authority was not biased who conducted the inquiry in a fair and impartial manner. The Inquiring Authority has found that articles of charge No. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 stand proved against the petitioner in his report Annexure R1/E. The Inquiring Authority has given reasons for relying on Ex. P-49 and Ex. P-50. In these circumstances, the observations made by Inquiring Authority in para-81 referred by the petitioner are of no help to the petitioner. The respondent No. 1 had considered Annexure P-17 the request of the petitioner for personal hearing and found baseless, therefore, rejected. The representation Annexure P-17 of the petitioner against the inquiry report was considered and was found far fetched and contrary to factual position. The respondent No. 1 did not find any illegality or irregularity in the inquiry report which as a matter of fact is based upon proper appreciation of evidence produced by both the parties during the course of inquiry proceedings.
The conclusion drawn by the Inquiring Authority also found having been based upon evidence which has come on record. The charges against the petitioner were serious in nature and the same were duly proved during the course of inquiry, therefore, respondent No. 1 was absolutely justified in accepting the report of Inquiring Authority. In the opinion of respondent No. 1, it was not in public interest to retain the petitioner any further in service, because the duties of a Judicial Officer are of very sensitive in nature. The respondent No. 1 has still taken a lenient view by imposing the penalty of removal instead of dismissal from service of petitioner. The representation referred by the petitioner in para18 of the petition was considered by respondent No. 1 and disposed of by passing a reasoned order. On the basis of decision taken by respondent No. 1 regarding removal of petitioner from service after considering his representation to the inquiry report a reference was made to Principal Secretary (Home) to the Government of Himachal Pradesh and thereafter notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 for removing the petitioner from H.P. Judicial Service with immediate effect was issued by respondent No. 2. The representation Annexure P-19 dated 1.7.2004 was considered and it was not deemed proper and necessary to supply the copy of minutes of Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 to the petitioner, and in these circumstances, the representation Annexure P-19 was ordered to be filed. However, representation made by the petitioner against the inquiry report was duly considered by respondent No. 1 and thereafter major penalty of removal from service was imposed.
The respondent No. 2 has also contested the petition by filing a reply. The respondent No. 2 has taken the stand that Judicial Officers of the State are under the administrative control of the High Court. The notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 was issued by respondent No. 2 on the recommendations of High Court. The respondent No. 2 has ultimately prayed for dismissal of the petition.
The respondent No. 3 has filed reply in which he has stated that record of proceedings of inquiry was available with respondent No. 1 and the allegations of alleged commission or non- commission of any irregularities or illegality by respondent No. 3 in the course of inquiry proceedings may be judged by the court itself on merits and adopted the reply of respondents No. 1 and 2 with regard to paras 1 to 24 alongwith grounds contained in sub- paras (a) to (o) of the main petition. The respondent No. 3, however, has also made additional submissions with respect to sub-paras (i) and (h) of the grounds of writ petition. It has been denied that Ex. P2/A and Ex. P48 were taken on record in absence of the petitioner. These documents were taken on record in presence of the petitioner and the petitioner had objected against the admission of these documents even at that stage. The objection of the petitioner was considered on 22.12.2003. It has been denied that complainant had been frequently visiting the chamber of respondent No. 3. The proceedings were conducted in the court chamber of respondent No. 3 in presence of both the parties and their counsel. The inquiry proceedings were not the proceedings of court of District & Sessions Judge, where respondent No. 3 was posted as District Judge, the record of the case has not been maintained and dealt by regular court staff. In these circumstances, at one or two occasions the complainant and so also the petitioner had seen respondent No. 3 for a minute or two for inquiring about some procedural matters of innocuous nature such as the date fixed in the case and issuance of summons etc. to the witnesses. The inquiry has been conducted impartially and in fair manner and without prejudice or bias in favour or against any party. The allegations made against respondent No. 3 are false, baseless, uncalled for and unfounded.
The petitioner has filed rejoinder to the reply of respondent No. 1 and reiterated the stand taken in the petition. He has placed on record Annexure P-25 application, copy of OMP No. 462/04 in CS No. 50 of 2003 Maninder Vir v. Deepa Singh seeking permission to withdraw the suit. The petitioner has also placed on record Annexure P-26 copy of order dated 24.9.2004 passed in OMP No. 462/04 in CS No. 50/03 permitting the plaintiff to withdraw the suit. The petitioner has filed CMP No. 418 of 2008 for placing on record Annexure- A to Annexure-O on record. The petitioner has also filed rejoinder to reply of respondent No. 3 and reiterated his stand which he has taken in the writ petition.
The petitioner was charge-sheeted on the following articles of charge:
ARTICLE -I
That Shri K.P. Singh, a member of H.P. Judicial Service (now under suspension), while posted as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jawali, applied for leave from 9.12.2002 to 22.12.2002 on the false pretext that he was sick, but actually he went to Thailand on 10.12.2002 with a lady lawyer, Ms. Deepa Singh of Dalhousie, and returned in her company on 22.12.2002 and thus he committed an act of misconduct, as defined in Rule 2(1) (ii) (iii) of the CCS(Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE -II
That the said Shri K.P. Singh , while posted as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jawali, remained willfully absent from duty from 10.12.2003 to 22.12.2003 (sic) and thereby committed an act of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 3(1) (ii) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE -III
That said Shri K.P. Singh, while posted at Jawali as Sub Judge-cum- Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, went to Thailand on 10.12.2002 and remained there till his return to India on 22.12.2002, without obtaining permission of the competent Authority, that is, the High Court of Himachal Pradesh and thereby committed an act of misconduct within the meaning of Rule 2(1) (ii) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE -IV
That said Shri K.P. Singh, while functioning as Sub Judge-cum-Judicial Magistrate at Dalhousie from 12.8.1996 to 11.6.1999 and Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate at Jawali from 21.6.1999 to 25.12.2002 had been having illicit relations with a lady lawyer, named Ms. Deepa Singh of Dalhousie, inspite of the fact that not only he himself (Shri K.P. Singh) is a married man, but Ms. Deepa Singh is also a married woman, to his knowledge, and thereby committed an act of misconduct, unbecoming of a Government servant, especially a Judicial Officer, as defined in Rule 2(1) (i) and (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE -V
That during his posting at Jawali as Sub Judge-cum- Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, said Shri K.P. Singh had been having illicit relations with a lady named Ms. Jeenat Mahajan of Pathankot, which is unbecoming of a Judicial Officer and he thereby committed an act of misconduct, as defined in Rule 3 (1) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE -VI
That said Shri K.P. Singh lodged false reports alleging loss of his passport, to the police of Pathankot on 30.12.2002, to the Passport Authorities on 13.2.2003 and to the High Court on 4.1.2003, after he came to know that the High Court was contemplating disciplinary action against him for his having gone to Thailand, without obtaining permission from it and also for seeking leave on the false pretext of sickness and thereby committed an act of misconduct, as defined in Rule 3 (i) (iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964.
ARTICLE -VII
That said Shri K.P. Singh has deliberately given to different dates of his birth, one to the High Court for incorporation in his service record, which is 4.1.1958 and another to the Passport Authorities, which is 4.6.1956, and has thereby committed an act of misconduct, as defined in Rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. In para-127 of the inquiry report, the Inquiring Authority has held that 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 6th articles of charge have been established against the delinquent, whereas 5th and 7th articles of charge have not been established against the delinquent.
Heard and perused the record. Mr. Jia Lal Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 is cryptic, non-speaking and in violation of Rule 15(2) and 15(2A) of CCS (CCA) Rules 1965. The additional evidence has been wrongly, illegally taken on record by the Inquiring Authority. The inquiry has been conducted against the principles of natural justice, the Inquiring Authority was biased and has conducted the inquiry in illegal manner. The order of removal of petitioner from service has been passed without giving him an opportunity of hearing. The Inquiring Authority has misread the evidence. Ms. Jyotsna Rewal Dua, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that Inquiring Authority has conducted the inquiry in accordance with law. The respondent No. 1 has also acted in accordance with law and considered the case of the petitioner with due application of mind. It was found that conclusions drawn by the Inquiring Authority were in consonance with the evidence on record, the additional evidence has been taken on record in accordance with law. The notification of removal of petitioner from service is just, legal and has been issued after following due process of law. Ms. Vidushi, Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent No. 3 has supported the stand of respondent No. 3 which he has taken in his reply. On behalf of respondent No. 2, it has been submitted that respondent No. 2 on the recommendations of respondent has passed the order/ notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18.
On the basis of submissions made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the following points emerge for determination:
(1) The Inquiring Authority was authorized by disciplinary authority to conduct the inquiry, the impugned order dated 5.6.2004 was passed by the State Government. Therefore, in the present case the disciplinary authority was the Inquiring Authority.
(2) The Inquiring Authority has taken on record various documents of presenting side in violation of Rule 14(15) of the Rules.
(3) The Rule 15(2) and Rule 15(2A) of the rules have been violated.
(4) The impugned order/ notification is not a speaking order. The Rule 17 has been violated. The proceedings of the Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 were not supplied to the petitioner, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner.
(5) The statements of most of the witnesses of the presenting side were not supplied at the proper time to the petitioner. The Inquiring Authority did not provide appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. The Inquiring Authority was biased. The Inquiring Authority has only considered the case of the presenting side and the evidence led by the petitioner has not been considered. There is no legal evidence in the inquiry in support of various charges. The written arguments submitted to the Inquiring Authority were not considered.
(6) The Disciplinary Authority did not give personal hearing at the stage of considering reply to charge- sheet and also at the final stage when the comments of the petitioner to the inquiry report were sought.
Point No. 1.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the impugned order/ notification dated 5.6.2004 Annexure P-18 has been issued by respondent No. 2. The Inquiring Authority has conducted the inquiry against the petitioner on behalf of Disciplinary Authority respondent No. 1, therefore, the inquiry conducted by the Inquiring Authority on behalf of Disciplinary Authority can be safely construed to be the inquiry conducted by Disciplinary Authority itself. It has been submitted that the procedure prescribed for the Disciplinary Authority when Disciplinary Authority itself is the Inquiring Authority shall apply in the present case. There is no force in the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the present case, the Disciplinary Authority has conducted the inquiry itself. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 14 of the Rules provides that whenever Disciplinary Authority is of the opinion that there are grounds for inquiring into the truth of an imputation of misconduct or misbehaviour against the government servant, it may itself inquire into or appoint an authority to inquire into the truth thereof. The explanation to Sub-rule (2) further provides that where Disciplinary Authority itself holds the inquiry, any reference in sub-rule(7) to Sub-rule (20) and in Sub-rule (22) to the Inquiring Authority shall be construed as a reference to the Disciplinary Authority. It is not the case of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 is not the Disciplinary Authority of petitioner. The respondent No. 1 under Article 235 of the Constitution has control over the subordinate judiciary in the State, the recommendations made by respondent No. 1 in an inquiry of misconduct against a member of subordinate judiciary in the State is binding on respondent No. 2. In Registrar (Admn.) High Court of Orissa, The Registrar (Administration), High Court of Orissa, Cuttack Vs. Sisir Kanta Satapathy (Dead) by Lrs. and Another, the Supreme Court has held that High Courts alone are entitled to initiate, to hold enquiry and to take decision in respect of dismissal, removal, reduction in rank or termination from service, but formal orders to give effect to such a decision has to be passed only by the State Governor on the recommendation of the High Court. Recommendation of the High Court is binding on the State Government/ Governor. In para-7 of the petition, the petitioner has pleaded that vide order dated 2.9.2003 Sh. Rameshwer Sharma, District Judge, Shimla was appointed as Inquiry Officer to hold inquiry against the petitioner. The respondent No. 3 in the present case was the Inquiring Authority whereas respondent No. 1 as Disciplinary Authority. The point No. 1 is accordingly decided. Point No. 2.
It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Rule 14(15) has been violated by the Inquiring Authority as it has taken on record many documents in inquiry and examined witnesses which were not relied in the charge-sheet. The allegation of the petitioner is that on 22.12.2003 in his absence Ex. P2/A and passenger manifest Ex. P 48 were taken on record. In the order dated 22.12.2003, the Inquiring Authority has recorded that presenting side has also tendered in evidence certified copy of document Ex. P 2, which has been taken on record as Ex. P 2/A and certified copy of passenger manifest Ex. P 48 has been admitted subject to objection by the delinquent on the ground of late production. The evidence of both the sides has been closed as per their statements recorded separately. The presence of the petitioner has been recorded in the order dated 22.12.2003 by the Inquiring Authority. The objection of petitioner for taking on record documents has been noticed by the Inquiring Authority in the order dated 22.12.2003. The application dated 27.12.2003 Annexure P 9 of the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 22.12.2003 is an afterthought, and, therefore, it was rightly rejected by the Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority in the order dated 26.12.2003 has permitted tendering of certified copies of certain documents on the ground that presenting side is only seeking now to file the certified copies of the documents. The uncertified copies of these documents have already been produced on record and have been exhibited in the case, therefore, the Inquiring Authority had allowed placing on record documents Ex. P4/A, Ex. P5/A, Ex. P6/A, Ex. P7/A, Ex. P11/A, Ex. P 12/A and Ex. P 13/A. The application of the petitioner for reviewing the order dated 26.12.2003 for taking on record the aforesaid documents was rejected by the Inquiring Authority on 27.12.2003. The petitioner filed an application for supplying copies of certain documents and the Inquiring Authority vide order dated 27.12.2003 directed the presenting side to supply copies of documents Ex. P 42, Ex. P 43, Ex. P 44, Ex. P 45, Ex. P 47, Ex. P4/A , Ex. P5/A, Ex. P 6/A, Ex. P 7/A, Ex. P 11/A, Ex. P 12/A and Ex. P 13/A. On 3.1.2004 the Inquiring Authority had given opportunity to the petitioner to controvert Ex. P 2/A, Ex. P 4/A, Ex. P 5/A, Ex. P 6/A, Ex. P 7/A, Ex. P 11/A, Ex. P 12/A, Ex. P 13/A, Ex. P 41 to Ex. P 48, but the petitioner has per statement recorded separately did not lead any other evidence for rebutting the said documents. On 3.1.2004, the Inquiring Authority had taken on record Ex. P 49 and Ex. P 50 on the application of the presenting side on the ground that these documents are not new documents, but are same documents which have already been admitted in evidence and only certified copies thereof have been placed on record.
The perusal of various orders passed by the Inquiring Authority during enquiry indicate that petitioner was heard, his objections were noticed and thereafter additional witnesses of presenting side were allowed to be examined, they were cross- examined by the petitioner. The additional documents filed by the presenting side were also taken on record after hearing petitioner. It appears the petitioner had not taken the objection of prejudice before the Inquiring Authority for taking on record documents from 22.12.2003 to 3.1.2004. The petitioner even in the writ petition has not pointed out the actual prejudice caused to him for taking on record the documents. In Syndicate Bank and Others Vs. Venkatesh Gururao Kurati, it has been held that for non-supply of documents prejudice has to be shown. The petitioner has failed to show that documents were not supplied to him, which were considered by the Inquiring Authority nor he has shown any prejudice. Rule 14(15) authorizes the Inquiring Authority to allow the presenting side to produce evidence not included in the list given to the government servant. Sub rule (15) authorizes the Inquiring Authority to call for new evidence or recall and reexamine any witness and in such case the government servant shall be entitled to have, if he demands it, a copy of list of further evidence proposed to be produced. It is thus clear that Inquiring Authority has power to take additional evidence at the instance of the presenting side or at his own motion. The petitioner has not established violation of Rule 14(15) for examining additional witnesses of presenting side. The petitioner has also not established violation of Rule 14(15) for taking on record various additional documents by the Inquiring Authority. The petitioner has not shown that the additional witnesses and documents which were taken on record during inquiry have caused any prejudice to him. The petitioner has thus not established violation of Rule 14(15) of CCS (CCA) Rules.
Point No. 3.
It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that Disciplinary Authority after the receipt of the report of the Inquiring Authority has not recorded its findings and supplied the same to the petitioner. The Disciplinary Authority did not consider the representation of the petitioner, which he had filed against the report of the Inquiring Authority and has also not recorded a finding before proceeding to recommend the removal of the petitioner from service. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 is in two parts. It covers two eventualities, one, when Disciplinary Authority itself is the Inquiring Authority and two, when the Disciplinary Authority itself is not the Inquiring Authority. In the first situation, the Disciplinary Authority shall forward a copy of the inquiry report to delinquent. In the second situation the Disciplinary Authority shall forward a copy of the report of the Inquiring Authority together with its own tentative reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the government servant. In both the situations, the government servant, if he so desires, is to submit his representation to the Disciplinary Authority within fifteen days whether the report is favourable or not to the government servant.
In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority had not conducted the inquiry itself rather the inquiry was conducted by the Inquiring Authority. Therefore, as per second part of Sub-rule (2) what was required to be sent to the petitioner was the copy of report of the Inquiring Authority. The Disciplinary Authority was not in disagreement with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any articles of charge, therefore, the Disciplinary Authority was not required to give its own tentative reasons for disagreement with the findings of the Inquiring Authority on any article of charge to the petitioner. It is not the case of the petitioner that inquiry report was not supplied to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to make out a case that Sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 has been violated.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Disciplinary Authority has not considered the representation of the petitioner and recorded its findings as per Sub-rule (2A) of Rule 15 before recommending removal of the petitioner to respondent No. 2. He has relied S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India, in support of his submission that representation of petitioner should have been decided by reasoned order by respondent No. 1. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent No. 1 that the representation of the petitioner was duly considered in the Full Court on 7.4.2004 and was rejected after recording its findings. The Full Court order dated 7.4.2004 rejecting the representation of the petitioner is as follows:
Item No. 2 Consideration of representation of Shri K.P. Singh, Civil Judge (Jr. Division) (under suspension) in terms of Rule 15(2) of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965.
Considered. Vide resolution passed by the Full Court on 24.2.2004, a copy of the report of the Inquiry Officer was directed to be sent to Shri K.P. Singh, delinquent Officer, as contemplated under sub rule (2) of Rule 15 of the CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 and he was required to submit a representation, if any, against the report of the Inquiry Officer.
As a consequence of the aforesaid resolution dated 24.2.2004, on 26.2.2004, vide communication No. HHC/GAZ/14190/ 88-II-234, dated 26.2.2004, the Registrar General of this Court accordingly sent a copy of the Inquiry Report to the delinquent Officer with a view to enable him to submit his written representation to the Disciplinary Authority, if he so desired within 15 days of the receipt of the said communication. The delinquent Officer however did not send his written representation within 15 days and instead on 23.3.2004, requested for extension of time by one week. The Full Court, vide resolution passed on 24.3.2004, acceded to the aforesaid request of the delinquent Officer and extended time by one week from 24.3.2004.
The representation of the delinquent Officer has since been received, which was placed in the Full Court meeting today for our consideration.
We have perused the representation of the delinquent Officer and considered the same in the light of the report of the Inquiry Officer. We have also considered his request to grant him personal hearing and feel that neither there is any need for the same nor any useful purpose shall be served by granting him a personal hearing.
It was found that the delinquent Officer was charged under as many as seven heads of articles of charges and out of these, he has been found guilty of five number of articles of charges by the Inquiry Officer.
In brief, it is established that Shri K.P. Singh, while posted as a Judicial Officer at Dalhousie and Jawali between 1996 to December, 2002 developed illicit relations with a lady lawyer, Mrs. Deepa Singh, who was practicing as an Advocate at Dalhousie. Further, he traveled in her company to Thailand on 10.12.2002 and remained there till his return to India on 22.12.2002. He did not obtain any permission from the competent authority and remained willfully absent from 10.12.2002 to 22.12.2002. He rather applied for leave for the period from 9.12.2002 to 22.12.2002 on the false pretext of his being sick, whereas he had actually gone to Thailand during this period. Further, on coming to know that an inquiry is being contemplated against him by the High Court for having gone to Thailand without obtaining permission and by seeking leave on false pretext of sickness, he lodged a false report to the police alleging loss of passport. The charges are very serious in nature, especially as these relate to moral turpitude on the part of the delinquent Officer and acts unbecoming of a Judicial Officer. Even though the delinquent Officer had infact gone to Thailand with the lady lawyer, Mrs. Deepa Singh (which fact has conclusively been proved and established with reference to and on the basis of official documents), when asked to explain and when served with the articles of charges, he denied this fact in toto knowing fully well that he had actually gone to Thailand in the company of the aforesaid lady Advocate, Mrs. Deepa Singh and that he had done so without obtaining any leave or permission from the competent authority.
In the light of the aforesaid discussion, agreeing with the report of the Inquiry Officer, accepting its findings on all the charges and in view of the nature of grave and serious charges proved against the delinquent Officer and after considering the representation of the delinquent Officer, we feel that it shall not be in public interest to retain the delinquent Officer in service and that the gravity of the charges against him is such, that, his removal from service is the only option.
However, considering his age and other relevant factors, even though looking to the gravity and nature of charges and also the fact that the delinquent Officer went out of his way to falsely defend himself despite clear cut evidence against him and made all attempts to mislead in his said untenable defences, whereas we feel that the extreme penalty of dismissal from service in terms of Clause (ix) of Rule 11 of CCS (CCA) Rules, 1965 is warranted in the facts and circumstances of this case, yet taking a lenient view, only being influenced by the consideration of his age, resolved that he be imposed the major penalty of removal from service in terms of Clause (viii) of Rule 11 (supra).
Let necessary recommendation be made to the State Government for issuance of appropriate notification on the subject.
In S.N. Mukherjee (supra), in paragraph 35 of the report, it has been held that it is not required that the reasons should be as elaborate as in the decision of a Court of law. It is clear that the Disciplinary Authority has decided the representation of petitioner against the inquiry report by speaking and reasoned order. Thus the petitioner has failed to make out a case of violation of rules 15(2) and 15(2A).
Point No. 4.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner on the basis of Rule 17 has submitted that order passed by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the government servant, who shall also be supplied a copy of its findings on each article of charge. The precise submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that impugned order/ notification dated 5.6.2004 does not fulfill the requirement of Rule 17, inasmuch as the order is without reasons, findings. The further submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that it is implicit that the order which has civil consequences must disclose reasons, but the impugned order/ notification is without supporting findings and reasons. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that respondent No. 1 is the Disciplinary Authority and the removal order is to be passed by respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 or the Governor is bound by the recommendations of respondent No. 1 for removing a member of the subordinate judiciary in the State on the basis of misconduct. The Full Court decision dated 7.4.2004 clearly indicates that after recording reasons a conscious decision was taken by respondent No. 1 that the petitioner be imposed major penalty of removal from service and necessary recommendations be made to the State Government for issuance of appropriate notification on the subject.
It has also been contended on behalf of the petitioner that proceedings of the Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 were not supplied to him even though he made a request for supplying copy of such proceedings. It has not been pointed out under what rule the petitioner was entitled to supply copy of the proceedings of the Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004. However, the learned Counsel for the petitioner for supplying the proceedings of Full Court meeting dated 7.4.2004 has also relied on Rule 17.
It is settled law that under Article 235 of the Constitution the respondent No. 2 with respect to members of subordinate judiciary in the State is bound by the recommendations of respondent No. 1 -High Court. Therefore, reasons, if any, are required in the decision taken by respondent No. 1 on the representation of petitioner which he had submitted after receipt of inquiry report. The impugned order/ notification Annexure P-18 is to be read alongwith decision of respondent No. 1 made in Full Court proceedings dated 7.4.2004 and therefore, it cannot be said that impugned order/ notification is without reasons and findings of respondent No. 1 - Disciplinary Authority.
The Rule 17 is also in two parts. The second part of Rule 17 covers the case where Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring Authority. There is substance in the submission of the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 that first part of Rule 17 covers the situation where Disciplinary Authority itself is the Inquiring Authority. In support of this contention, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has relied Item (13) of para- 29.2, Chapter 29 of Handbook on Personnel Matters, Govt. of Himachal Pradesh, Department of Personnel, Vol-III (Second Edition), pertaining to Central Civil Services (Classification Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 and State Govt.''s Orders thereunder, which is as follows:
(13) Rule 17 - Communication of orders. This rule provides that orders made by the disciplinary authority shall be communicated to the Government servant who shall also be supplied with a copy of the report of inquiry, if any, held by the disciplinary authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge, or where the disciplinary authority is not the inquiry authority, a copy of the report of the inquiring authority and a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the inquiring authority. A copy of the advice of the Public Service Commission, if any, and where the disciplinary authority has not accepted the advice of the commission, a brief statement of the reasons for such non-acceptance are also to be communicated to the Govt. servant.
The aforesaid Item No. 13 provides that orders made by the Disciplinary Authority shall be communicated to the government servant, who shall also be supplied with a copy of report of the enquiry, if any, held by the Disciplinary Authority and a copy of its findings on each article of charge, Item No. 13 further provides that when Disciplinary Authority is not the Inquiring authority, a copy of the report of inquiring authority and a statement of its findings together with a brief reasons of disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring authority shall be supplied to the government servant. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority was not the inquiring authority, and, therefore, in the light of second part of aforesaid Item No. 13 and Rule 17, what was required to be sent to petitioner by Disciplinary Authority was a copy of report of Inquiring Authority and a statement of its findings together with brief reasons for disagreement, if any, with the findings of the Inquiring Authority. In the present case, the Disciplinary Authority itself was not the Inquiring Authority and Disciplinary Authority was not in disagreement with the findings of Inquiring Authority on any articles of charge. The contention of petitioner that `statement of findings'' has not been communicated to him by Disciplinary Authority and for that reason the impugned order/ notification is not sustainable has no force. Rule 17 only speaks of communication of certain material mentioned therein to delinquent. This indicates that at the stage of Rule 17 inquiry is over and only some material is required to be communicated to the delinquent. The Disciplinary Authority has taken the stand that it has accepted the findings of Inquiring Authority on each article of charge without any disagreement. In these circumstances, in substance `statement of findings'' mentioned in Rule 17 cannot be different from statement of findings given by Inquiring Authority. Therefore, in substance there is no violation of Rule 17 in the present case. The petitioner has failed to establish violation of Rule 17 and once violation of Rule 17 or any other rule has not been established, then there is no question of prejudice to the petitioner. The petitioner has not made out any case under point No. 4.
Point No. 5.
The case of the petitioner is that one Maninder Vir had estranged relations with his wife Deepa Singh, Advocate who filed the complaint against the petitioner. Maninder Vir was local guardian of master Karan Sadyal son of police officer K.C. Sadyal, who was at one point of time was posted as Superintendent of Police at Una when petitioner was posted at Amb in District Una in the year 1988. According to petitioner, K.C. Sadyal was carrying a grudge against the petitioner regarding some incident when K.C. Sadyal and petitioner were posted at Una. K.C. Sadyal was later on promoted as DIG and was posted at Dharamshala and was having family relations with Maninder Vir and had helped him in lodging a false rapat on 30.11.2002 against the petitioner through his minor son. It is also the case of the petitioner that K.C. Sadyal had family relations with Raja Brijinder Singh of Princely State Chamba husband of Smt. Asha Kumari, who was State Minister of Higher Education in Himachal Pradesh at the relevant time. A public interest suit concerning Raja Brijinder Singh and Smt. Asha Kumari was tried by the petitioner when he was posted as Sub Judge at Dalhousie. It has been alleged that pressure was exerted on the petitioner to decide the suit in a particular manner. The petitioner was even tried to be influenced through his wife Smt. Lalita Singh, who was Gazetted Officer but she refused to persuade the petitioner to decide the case in a particular manner. She was harassed and suspended. The petitioner and his family members after the institution of the suit were threatened. The rivals of the petitioner had started writing anonymous and false complaints to respondent No. 1. The petitioner decreed the suit on 14.5.1998. The petitioner was falsely involved in a departmental inquiry by conspiring and alleging false complaints against him. The grievance of the petitioner is that Inquiring Authority has not conducted the inquiry fairly. The Inquiring Authority was biased. He filed an application to Disciplinary Authority for changing the Inquiring Authority, but the request of the petitioner was turned down. The Inquiring Authority did not supply statements of most of the witnesses of the presenting side at the proper time to the petitioner nor the petitioner was given fair opportunity to lead defence evidence. The Inquiring Authority considered the case of the presenting side only and ignored the evidence led by the petitioner. There is no legal evidence on record to hold the petitioner guilty. The written arguments submitted by the petitioner were not considered by the Inquiring Authority.
The petitioner has levelled sweeping allegations against the Inquiring Authority. The petitioner first time appeared before the Inquiring Authority on 23.9.2003. The recording of evidence of presenting side witnesses had commenced on 22.10.2003. The evidence of the presenting side was closed on 3.12.2003. The evidence of the petitioner was started before the Inquiring Authority on 8.12.2003. The cross-examination of petitioner was completed and he closed his evidence on 22.12.2003. On 22.12.2003, 26.12.2003 some documents were tendered in evidence by the presenting side. The petitioner appeared as his own witness, therefore, his statement under Sub-rule (18) of Rule 14 was recorded on 26.12.2003. The petitioner filed an application on 31.12.2003 Annexure P-7 for changing the Inquiring Authority. In the application, dated 31.12.2003 Annexure P-7, it has been alleged by the petitioner that after the closure of evidence of both the sides, large gaps were allowed to be filled up by the Inquiring Authority in contravention of rules. It has been alleged that from 22.12.2003 to 26.12.2003 dates were fixed to get more documents for filling up the gaps. The applications of the presenting side were allowed despite objections of the petitioner. The application of the petitioner for not reading the documents, unless proved as per law, was rejected by the Inquiring Authority. The complainant most of the times was associated in the proceedings. At the end, it has been alleged that the facts narrated by the petitioner in his application created reasonable apprehension in his mind regarding the partial attitude of the Inquiring Authority and a request was made for changing the Inquiring Authority.
The Inquiring Authority has the power to take on record additional evidence under Sub-rule (15) of Rule 14. The application dated 31.12.2003 indicates that petitioner had raised some grievance for taking on record documents during inquiry from 22.12.2003 to 26.12.2003. There is no allegation in the application that the Inquiring Authority intentionally and with ulterior motive allowed the presenting side to place on record certain documents. In the application dated 31.12.2003, no specific violation of any rule has been alleged for taking on record the documents during inquiry by the Inquiring Authority. Simply because, some orders were passed by the Inquiring Authority, which were not to the liking of the petitioner and according to the perception of the petitioner those orders were wrong, therefore, it cannot be said that the Inquiring Authority had conducted the inquiry in a biased manner. In the application dated 31.12.2003, it has not been stated that the documents taken on record by the Inquiring Authority have caused prejudice to the petitioner. In the application, dated 31.12.2003, there is no allegation that statements of witnesses and documents were not supplied to the petitioner at the proper time. In the application, there is no allegation that Inquiring Authority has not given appropriate opportunity to the petitioner to lead defence evidence. The application dated 31.12.2003 for change of Inquiring Authority was considered by the Disciplinary Authority and was rejected. The rejection was accepted by the petitioner. He did not challenge the order of Disciplinary Authority rejecting the request to change Inquiring Authority. The Inquiring Authority has denied the allegation of bias in his reply. The petitioner has failed to establish that Inquiring Authority was biased against the petitioner.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended that there is no legal evidence on record so as to prove the misconduct of the petitioner. It has been held in State of Haryana and Another Vs. Rattan Singh, that strict rule of Evidence Act is not applicable in the inquiry. This Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in a case of departmental inquiry does not sit in appeal. In order to consider the contention of learned Counsel for the petitioner that there is no evidence on record to prove the misconduct of the petitioner, I have myself gone through the evidence which has come on record during inquiry. PW 1 Parmod Sood, Manager, Liaison and Customers Services of Thai Airways International, PCL, New Delhi has stated that as per passengers manifest (list of passengers), which he has brought, a person named Singh K.P. had traveled by their flight No. TG316 dated 10th December 2002 from Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi to Bangkok. As per passengers manifest Singh Deepa had also traveled by this flight from New Delhi to Bangkok. As per passengers manifest, Singh Deepa Ms and Singh K.P. Mr. had returned from Bangkok to New Delhi by flight TG315 on 22nd December 2002. He has placed on record, passengers manifest Ex. P 2, which was retrieved from computer system by airport officials and was supplied to him.
PW 2 Sandeep Goel, IPS Foreigners Regional Registration Officer, Delhi has stated that he is posted as Foreigners Regional Registration Officer at Delhi under administration of Ministry of Home Affairs. He is required to deal with immigration matters. Their office is maintaining record in respect of the persons who go abroad and also who are coming from abroad. As per record available in their office which he had brought Sh. Kiran Pal Singh holder of Passport No. R-489789 and Deepa Singh holder of Passport No. E-3033381 had departed from Indira Gandhi International Airport, Delhi on 10.12.2002 by flight No. TG 316 of Thai Airways. Both of these passengers had returned to India at I.G.I.A. Delhi on 22.12.2002 by flight No. TG 315 of the airways.
PW 3 Moninder Vir Singh has stated that he is married. Deepa Singh is his wife and is a practicing Lawyer at Dalhousie since 1992. He has a son Sidharth, who is born to Deepa Singh. He, his wife Deepa Singh and son Sidharth were residing together at Dalhousie in 1992, Deepa Singh and he had some estrangement and therefore, Deepa Singh filed a divorce petition against him but there was amicable settlement between them and in the year 1993 Deepa Singh again started living with him as his wife. He knows K.P. Singh since the end of 1996. The family of the witness had good relation with the family of K.P. Singh and they were visiting each other. He came to know that on many occasions his wife had gone to K.P. Singh''s house when the wife of K.P. Singh was not present. He had confronted this to his wife who told to him `go to hell'', she is going to meet K.P. Singh and she does so regularly. Later on, it was being rumoured in the town of Dalhousie that in case if anyone wants to get anything done from the court of Sub Judge at Dalhousie, he should engage Deepa Singh as an Advocate. She informed him that she was having an affair including a strong sexual involvement with K.P. Singh and her practice as an advocate at Dalhousie has more than doubled ever since K.P. Singh had joined at Dalhousie as Sub Judge. K.P. Singh was transferred from Dalhousie to Jawali some time in the year 1999. Deepa Singh had been visiting K.P. Singh at Jawali also and was staying there some times in the night. The son of the witness also used to accompany Deepa Singh to Jawali some times. Sidharth informed him that while at Jawali K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh used to sleep in some separate room, whereas Sidharth was made to sleep in some other room. Sharda Jootla mother of Deepa Singh had also informed the witness that her daughter Deepa Singh had gone astray. Deepa Singh used to talk regularly for hours together with K.P. Singh on telephone. The witness by drawing parallel line and putting machine had heard conversation of Deepa Singh and K.P. Singh who used to talk sexual matter in a dirty language. On the basis of telephonic conversation between Deepa Singh and K.P. Singh, he came to know that they were travelling together to Thailand on 9.12.2002 by Thai Airways. The witness with the help of his brother came to know about the return of Deepa Singh and K.P. Singh from Thailand to Delhi. He came to know that they would be returning from Thai Airways flight on 22nd December 2002. He went to the air port alongwith photographer Mohinder Singh and took photographs mark A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J and corresponding negatives mark- K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R,S. He identified K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh in the photographs. He produced tape- recorded conversation of K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh. The witness was cross-examined on behalf of the delinquent at length but nothing favourable to the delinquent could be extracted in the lengthy cross- examination.
PW 4 Jai Chand, Assistant Commissioner of Police, Delhi has stated that he is posted as Assistant Foreigners Regional Registration Officer in R.K. Puram, New Delhi. As per their record, Kiran Pal Singh holder of passport No. R489789 and Deepa Singh holder of passport No. E3033381 had departed from I.G.I. Airport, New Delhi by flight No. TG316 of Thai Airways on 10th December, 2002 from Delhi and they had returned on 22nd December 2002 by flight No. TG315 of Thai Airways.
PW 7 A.K. Ghosh, Section Officer, Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi has stated that he is working under B.A. Roy, Joint Secretary and Chief Pass Port Officer in the Ministry of External Affairs, New Delhi. In response to letter dated 28.3.2003 of Registrar Vigilance, High Court of Himachal Pradesh, the Ministry had sent reply to High Court under the signatures of B.A. Roy and a copy of such letter is Ex. P-20. PW 8 Harvinder Singh Sodhi is the photographer, who took photographs mark A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, J with corresponding negatives mark K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R. The photographs were exhibited as Ex. P 21 to Ex. P 29 and negatives Ex. P 30 to Ex. P 38.
PW 9 Bidhi Chand, Superintendent, Passport Office, Chandigarh has stated that K.P. Singh was issued passport bearing No. R-489789 on 16.2.1994. Deepa Singh was having passport No. E-3033381.
PW 13 Sidharath aged 15 years son of complainant Monindervir Singh and Deepa Singh has stated that K.P. Singh used to telephone his (PW 13) mother almost daily. K.P. Singh was having dirty relations with his mother. The talks between K.P. Singh and his mother were quite dirty. K.P. Singh was transferred from Dalhousie to Jawali. From Jawali also K.P. Singh used to telephone his mother daily. He and his mother had visited K.P. Singh at Jawali on many occasions. At the time when K.P. Singh was at Jawali, his wife and children had gone to Canada. At many occasions, he and his mother also stayed at Jawali at K.P. Singh''s house. When they used to stay at the residence of K.P. Singh at Jawali, his mother and he used to sleep in one room but when his mother felt that he had slept she used to go out and at such occasion when he tried to open the door of his room, he found that it was bolted from outside. At one morning when he tried to locate his mother in the house of K.P. Singh at Jawali, he found that voices of his mother and K.P. Singh were coming from one room and he tried to open the door but he found that it was closed from outside. He was cross-examined at length but noting favourable to the delinquent was extracted in his cross-examination.
PW 15 J.B. Singh is the brother of complainant Moninder Vir Singh. He has stated that on his inquiry, the Thai airways people informed him about the departure and flight number of K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh. They also informed him about the arrival of K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh on 22.12.2002. He and Maninder Vir Singh also planned to go to airport at the time of arrival of K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh. He called Maninder Vir Singh to Delhi and arranged photographer. He, Maninder Vir Singh, Jasvinder Singh, photographer Harvinder Singh Sodhi and two -three other persons went to the airport, Delhi in the evening of 22.12.2002 at 8 p.m. The flight landed at 8.30 p.m. He saw K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh coming together out of custom check barrier and they came to passengers arrival lounge. On their asking, Harvinder Singh photographed K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh. He has seen the photographs Ex. P 21 to P. 29 and he identified K.P. Singh and Deepa Singh in these photographs. He was cross-examined at length, but he did not support the delinquent.
DW 1 Siri Ram Verma, Superintendent Vigilance Branch, High Court of Himachal Pradesh has proved Ex. D-3 statement of Maninder Vir Singh. He has also proved statement Ex. D-4 of Harvinder Singh Sodhi photographer. DW 2 Dr. Shiv Raj Rikhi Senior Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Dasuya has proved prescription slip Ex. D-5, fitness certificate Ex. D-6 and signatures Ex. D 6/A of K.P. Singh obtained by him on fitness certificate. In cross examination he has stated that he has not brought the OPD register where the name of patient is recorded because no such register was being maintained in civil hospital, Dasuya. K.P. Singh had visited him on 9.12.2002 and thereafter on 18.12.2002. There is prescribed form available for issuing fitness certificate but Ex. D-6 has not been prepared on such form because the form was not available in the hospital on that date. He has stated that he has not put date on certificate Ex. D-6.
DW 3 Lt. Colonel Surjit Singh is a witness, who has deposed about the relationship of Lucky Singh (alias Moninder Vir Singh) and Raja Brijender Singh. He has stated that in one party he, Lucky Singh, and Raja Brijinder Singh, K.P. Singh were present and in that party Lucky Singh and Raja Brijender Singh were concentrating their discussion mainly around K.P. Singh. Raja Brijender Singh has uttered that he would set right K.P. Singh.
DW 4 Surinder Kumar is a practicing Advocate at Ropar and has stated that on 15.12.2002 he had gone to Miani (Lakinder) village to inquire about K.P. Singh as he came to know previous evening that K.P. Singh was sick and he was at Miani. He saw K.P. Singh lying on hard bed because he was having some problem in the spine. DW 6 Prakash Chand, Superintendent in the court of Sub Judge-cum- Addl. C.J.M, Nurpur has stated that he was posted in the court of Sub Judge-cum- Addl. C.J.M. as Superintendent from June 1998 to June 2003. K.P. Singh was posted as Sub Judge-cum- Addl. C.J.M., Jawali from 1998 till 25th December, 2002. K.P. Singh on 3.12.2002 had applied for one day casual leave for 9.12.2002. K.P. Singh had joined duty as Sub Judge-cum/ Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate on 23.12.2002 in the afternoon. On 23.12.2002 K.P. Singh got prepared from him one earned leave application for 13 days or half pay leave application with effect from 9./12.2002 to 21.12.2002 on the ground of self illness. This application was not enclosed with any fitness certificate, he returned this application to K.P. Singh with a request that he should submit the application with requisite fitness certificate.
DW 8 Lalita Singh is the wife of K.P. Singh and has stated that she was posted as CDPO, Chowari since October 1996 and her husband K.P. Singh was posted at Dalhousie since August 1996. She had given the power of attorney to Deepa Singh for her personal cases. K.P. Singh was transferred to Jawali in May 1999 and she remained with him at Jawali till July 1999. During her stay, Deepa Singh or her son never visited their residence at Jawali. Their children remained with K.P. Singh till about June 2002. In September 1997 Asha Kumari, a Minister in the State of H.P., J.B. Singh brother of Moninder Vir Singh met her at Banikhet rest house where they called her from officers meeting separately, where Asha Kumari and J.B. Singh asked her to get withdrawn one of the cases which was pending in the court of K.P. Singh at Dalhousie as the pendency of that case was going to affect the electoral prospects of Asha Kumari. She however expressed her inability in this behalf.
DW 9 K.P. Singh delinquent has appeared as his own witness and has supported his case. But in cross examination he has stated that he does not know if according to the record available in Thailand Embassy in India, he had traveled from New Delhi to Bangkok on 10.12.2002 by flight No. TG316 or that after reaching Thailand on 10.12.2002 he had applied for a visa in Thailand against his visa No. 179809/45 against his passport No. 489789. He also does not know that as per record of Thailand Embassy after reaching Bangkok on 10.12.2002 he had gone to Changmai alongwith Deepa Singh from Bangkok by flight No. TG 102, but he had not gone there.
The petitioner has taken different stands with respect to loss of his passport. One version of the petitioner is that he gave application to S.H.O., Police Station, City Pathankot on 12.11.2002 when he lost the passport on 12.11.2002 at Pathankot. It is also the case of petitioner that he gave another application on 28.12.2002 to S.H.O., Police City Pathankot in this respect. The petitioner has also taken the stand that he submitted another application dated 30.12.2002 alongwith an affidavit to Police Station, Pathankot as demanded by the police for loss of passport. Thereafter rapat was recorded at Police Station, Pathankot on 30.12.2002. The petitioner has not examined any witness from Police Station, Pathankot to prove the applications dated 12.11.2002, 28.12.2002, 30.12.2002. The Inquiring Authority has rightly concluded on the basis of material on record which has been approved by the Disciplinary Authority that report about the loss of passport was made only on 30.12.2002 and petitioner had not filed any application on 12.11.2002 and 28.12.2002 regarding the loss of passport. The report about the loss of passport was made by the petitioner on 30.12.2002 and by that time the petitioner was well aware that controversy about his visit to Thailand had gone deeper and deeper and he was already suspended. The Inquiring Authority has also rightly considered letter Ex. D 17 and UPC Ex. D 18 for showing that on 30.11.2002 the petitioner had informed Consulate of Embassy of USA, New Delhi. The USA Consulate was not concerned about the loss of passport of the petitioner. There is nothing on record to show that petitioner had informed Government of India or passport office about loss of his passport till February 2003.
The Inquiring Authority as well as Disciplinary Authority have considered above oral and documentary evidence and other material on record of the inquiry. On the basis of evidence on record of inquiry, it cannot be said that conclusion drawn by the Inquiring Authority and approved by the Disciplinary Authority is based upon no evidence. There is no worth believing evidence that petitioner was involved falsely in the case at the instance of K.C. Sadyal, Moninder Vir Singh or anyone else. Moreover, the independent evidence has come on record during inquiry proving the case against the petitioner as held by Inquiring Authority and affirmed by the Disciplinary Authority. The medical evidence led by the petitioner has been rightly rejected by the Inquiring Authority and Disciplinary Authority. The petitioner was not granted leave from 10.12.2002 to 22.12.2002. The petitioner applied leave for this period falsely that he was sick. The petitioner was absent during this period. The petitioner did not take permission from competent authority for going to Thailand. The visit of the petitioner to Thailand with Deepa Singh during the relevant period has been proved. The illicit relationship between the petitioner and Deepa Singh has also been established during inquiry. The false report about the loss of passport of the petitioner has been proved during inquiry and to this effect Inquiring Authority has recorded correct finding, which has been approved by the Disciplinary Authority. The Inquiring Authority had given full opportunity to the petitioner to defend the inquiry. The evidence led by the parties was considered and evaluated by the Inquiring Authority. The petitioner has failed to establish that only the case of the presenting side was considered and not of the delinquent and his written arguments were not considered by Inquiring Authority. The allegation of the petitioner that there is no legal evidence on record to connect the petitioner with the misconduct has also no force. The petitioner has failed to establish that Inquiring Authority was biased against the petitioner. The presenting side has led both oral and documentary evidence on record, similarly petitioner has led oral and documentary evidence, which has been considered by the Inquiring Authority in its report while recording findings that articles of charge No. I to IV and VI have been proved against the petitioner and Disciplinary Authority has agreed with such findings of Inquiring Authority. The judgements Union of India (UOI) and Others Vs. Prakash Kumar Tandon, and Roop Singh Negi Vs. Punjab National Bank and Others, relied by learned Counsel for the petitioner are not applicable on facts in the present case.
Point No. 6.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has not pointed out any provision from the rules which obliges the Disciplinary Authority to give personal hearing to the petitioner at the stage of reply to charge-sheet and at the time of considering the representation of the petitioner after inquiry report. In Madhya Pradesh Industries Ltd. Vs. Union of India and Others (UOI), it has been held that opportunity need not necessarily by personal hearing. The petitioner had submitted reply Annexure P 6 to the charge-sheet. He had also submitted comments Annexure P 17 on the findings of inquiry report which were considered. It is thus clear that petitioner was heard at both the stages. There is no substance in point No. 6, which is decided against the petitioner.
No other point was urged.
The result of the above discussion, the petition fails and is accordingly dismissed. No costs.