1.0 By way of present petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 30.11.1999 passed by the respondent authority whereby a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year without future effect is imposed.
2.0 The petitioner was working as Immigration Clearing Officer at the IGI Airport, New Delhi. After departmental inquiry, disciplinary authority passed order on 30.11.1999 whereby a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage for a period of one year was imposed on the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal before the respondent No.2. Thereafter the petitioner was served show cause notice dated 19.04.2000 issued by the respondent No. 2 wherein the respondent No. 2 proposed to enhance the penalty imposed by the disciplinary authority from “reduction of pay” to “ removal from service”. The petitioner therefore, preferred this petition. During the pedency of the petition, the respondent No. 2 vide order dated 23.12.2000 dropped the show cause notice dated 19.04.2000 proposing the removal from service and confirmed the punishment awarded by the Disciplinary Authority vide order dated 30.11.1999.
3.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner contended that the petition deserves to be allowed on the following grounds:
(1) That the pax in question made a compliant against the petitioner after 3 months of the incident that took place on 15/16.01.1995 while clearing a Singapore flight. The complainant was not examined and the detention of the complainant by the petitioner was not proved.
4.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Kuldeep Singh versus The Commissioner of Police and others reported in AIR 1999 SC 677. He further placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others reported in (2009) 2 Supreme Court Cases 570 wherein in para 14 it is held as under:
“14. Indusputably, a departmental proceeding is a quasijudicial proceeding. The enquiry officer performs a quasijudicial function. The charges levelled against the delinquent officer must be found to have been proved. The enquiry officer has a duty to arrive at a finding upon taking into consideration the materials brought on record by the parties. The purported evidence collected during investigation by the investigating officer against all the accused by itself could not be treated to be evidence in the disciplinary proceeding. No witness merely tendered the documents and did not prove the contents thereof. Reliance inter alia, was placed by the enquiry officer on the FIR which could not have been treated as evidence.”
5.0 Learned advocate for the petitioner further contended that the petitioner asked for the old passport to establish Sukhdev's earlier departure from India. The petitioner asked for his old passport which was issued from Vencouver ( Canada) and no departure stamp was available on it and no endorsement of old passport was available. He further submitted that there is no violation of FRRO's instruction dated 22.12.1993 if the petitioner demanded old passport because as per para 2 of FRRO Circular dated 22.12.1993 the clearing officer can ask if he has any doubt about forgery/suspicion of forgery of the passport produced by the pax. Hence this may not be considered as violation of FRRO instructions without any documentary evidence on record.
6.0 Mr. Amin, learned advocate for the respondent submitted that FRRO vide their circular dated 22.12.1993 clearly instructed that no clearing officer in future will ask for the expired passport/travel document from a pax in order to confirm his departure/arrival at the time of embarking/disembarking unless and until he has a reasonable and strong suspicion of forgery of the passport/travel documents produced before him by the pax for getting an immigration clearance. Besides the petitioner fails to prove his suspicion for asking old passport from the pax during the course of enquiry. He further submitted that after departmental inquiry, the conclusion reads as under:
1. While acting as Clearing officer, Sri. Satish Kumar then ACIOII (0) did make the pax stand by minutes extra and called him in the last after all the passengers. The allegation that the pax made stand for 45 minutes could not be proved and partially it is proved that the pax was kept till last.
2. Shir Satish Kumar, the then ACIOII (0) did ask for old passport to establish Sukhdev S. Laura's ear instructions of FRRO, Delhi.
3. The allegation that the Clearing Officer had demanded US Dollars 50 to clear the pax could not be proved no material evidence was produced.
7.0 Heard learned advocates for the parties and perused the documents on record. The fact which emerges from the record that the flight chart exhibits that on 15/16.01.1995 SQ408 arrived at 22000 hrs. and its passengers reported at 2205 hrs. The said flight was cleared withing 25 minutes whereas according to computer record, Shri Sukhdev S. Laura was cleared at 22.42.56 hrs. Thus, he was kept standing for about 12 minutes and cleared in the last. It has been clearly laid down in the FRRO Circular dated 22.12.1993 that no Clearing Officer in future will ask for the expired passport/travel documents from a pax in order to confirm his departure/arrival at the time of embarking/disembarking unless and until he has a reasonable and strong suspicion of forgery of the passport/travel documents produced before him by the pax for getting an immigration clearance. The plea of the petitioner that pax was not a Canadian national and is actually sikh but clean shaved and there was no endorsement regarding his old passport in the new one and hence doubt arose about his identity is not tenable.
8.0 As far as decision relied upon by the petitioner in case of Kuldeep Sing (supra) is concerned, para 9 thereof it is held that normally the High Court and the Apex Court would not interfere with the findings of fact recorded at the domestic enquiry but if the finding of “guilt” is based on no evidence, it would be a perverse finding and would be amenable to judicial scrutiny. Therefore, it is very clear that scope of Article 226 of the Constitution of India is very limited. On the facts of the case, the conclusion reached by the Enquiry Officer is just and proper. From the computer record, it is found that the Sukhdev Laura was cleared in the last. As regards the contention that complainant was not examined is concerned, when the delinquent himself has admitted that he has asked for old passport there is no question of examination of complainant. In that view of the matter, looking to the serious charges, I am of the opinion that the respondent authority has taken lenient view by imposing penalty of reduction of one increment without future effect. Therefore, no interference is called for. The petition deserves to be dismissed and the same is dismissed accordingly. Rule is discharged with no order as to costs. Interim relief, if any, stands vacated.
(K.S.JHAVERI, J.) niru*