Mukesh Prasad Singh vs Union of India and Others

I.A. No. 2591 of 2010

Heard learned counsel for the parties on the application for condonation of delay u/s 5 of the Limitation Act.

In view of the facts stated in the application for condonation of delay, the delay in filing the appeal for about 23 days is condoned.

I.A. No. 2591 of 2010 is accordingly disposed of.

L.P.A. No. 276 of 2010

Heard learned counsel for the parties on merits of the case.

The appellant is aggrieved against the order dated 11.05.2010 by which the appellant''s writ petition vide W.P.(S) No. 1110 of 2010 was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant was not supplied a copy of the statement of two witnesses recorded in preliminary enquiry who were PW 7 and PW 8 namely Sri B.K. Singh and Sri Imran Khan respectively, who deposed in appellant''s favour. It is submitted that the proceedings were not fair as the appellant himself suffered serious injuries and he was taken to hospital but other persons have not been charged with any charge. However, in spite of the allegation of appellant''s being in drunken state, he was not medically examined and when appellant''s evidence has not been corroborated by medical evidence, it cannot be held that the appellant was in drunken state at relevant time. It is also submitted that in fact the appellant was not aggressor but other persons were aggressor and against those other persons no action has been taken.

We perused the detailed preliminary enquiry report as well as the reasons given by the Disciplinary Authority and the reasons given by the Appellate Authority. The appellant was punished by lowering down his pay scale by two stages and reduction of his salary from the scale of Rs. 8470/- to Rs. 7820/- and also with a punishment that he shall not earn the benefit of annual increment. However, in revision, the punishment was reduced by reduction of pay scale by two stages for one year only.

The appellant was holding the post of constable and there are serious allegations against him is of beating others and the challenge to the proceeding is based on the ground that there was no sufficient evidence to the extent required for convicting a person in a criminal case where an ocular evidence requires corroboration from the medical evidence. However, the appellant could not satisfy that he was not given reasonable and fair opportunity to defend his case.

The evidence has been considered in detail and we are satisfied that in the facts and circumstances of the case no prejudice has been caused to the appellant in the departmental enquiry and the quantum of punishment cannot be said to be disproportionate to the charges levelled against the appellant.

We do not find any merit in this appeal which is accordingly dismissed.