(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE G. B. SHAH) We have heard Mr. Jalak Pipaliya, learned counsel for Mr. Anshin H. Desai for the appellant and Mr. N. J. Shah, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondents.
Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7348 of 1999, the appellant has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal and further prayed to quash and set aside the impugned order dated 01.06.1999 passed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department and also the order dated 27.08.1998 passed by respondent No.2 and consequently to quash and set aside the order dated 18.05.1998 passed by the Principal, Police Training College, Junagadh.
The brief facts of the case are that the appellant was serving as Police-Sub-Inspector in the Police department. It is alleged that the appellant has misappropriated a sum of Rs.5,800/- and has thereafter committed misconduct because of which the appellant was served with show-cause notice. As the appellant had denied the charge levelled against him, the respondent No.3 had issued charge-sheet against the appellant. Thus, the present proceedings have been initiated against the appellant which resulted into passing of the dismissal order by the respondent No.3 which has been confirmed in appeal by the respondent No.2 and again confirmed by the Deputy Secretary, Home Department while rejecting the revision application preferred by the appellant. The said orders have been confirmed by the Learned Single Judge.
Learned counsel for the appellant has mainly argued that the present appellant had replied to the charge-sheet pleading innocence as well as demanded several documents on which reliance was placed by the respondents. But the respondents in a bias manner had not provided with any documents on which the proceedings were initiated against the appellant.
In support of the submission that the appellant was not supplied with the Inquiry Report, reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India and others V/s. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, AIR 1991 SC 471 wherein in paragraph 15, the Apex Court observed as under :-
"15............ For doing away with the effect of the enquiry report or to meet the recommendations of the Inquiry Officer in the matter of imposition of punishment, furnishing a copy of the report becomes necessary and to have the proceeding completed by using some material behind the back of the delinquent is a position not countenanced by fair procedure. While by law application of natural justice could be totally ruled out or truncated, nothing has been done here which could be taken as keeping natural justice out of the proceedings and the series of pronouncements of this Court making rules of natural justice applicable to such an inquiry are not affected by the 42nd Amendment. Supply of a copy of the inquiry report along with recommendations, if any, in the matter of proposed punishment to be inflicted would be within the rules of natural justice and the delinquent would, therefore, be entitled to the supply of a copy thereof. The Forty-Second Amendment has not brought about any change in this position."
On the same point, Learned counsel for the appellant further relied on decision of the Apex Court in the case of Punjab National Bank and others V/s. K. K. Verma, (2010) 13 SCC 494.
We have gone through the above cited judgments. In our view, there appears to be no substance in the argument looking to the fact situation. The Learned Single Judge has clearly observed in his judgment in paragraph 11 that the contention of the petitioner that copy of the Inquiry Report was not given cannot be sustained in view of the affidavit filed by the respondents wherein it is specifically stated that copy of the Inquiry Report was served upon the petitioner on 16.01.1998. Hence, the judgments cited are not applicable to the facts of the present case.
Learned counsel for the appellant has further vehemently urged that after a period of three months, the proceedings have been initiated and if in fact, the appellant had paid less amount to 58 persons of Rs.100/- each i.e. instead of Rs.500/-, the appellant had paid Rs.400/- thereby misappropriated an amount of Rs.5800/-, then immediate action was to be taken on a complaint made by any of the persons out of the said 58 persons. However, after a period of three months, the proceedings had been initiated which is nothing but an after-thought and it was nothing but a pre-plan of the rival Officers.
Learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that when the appellant was serving as Armed Police-Sub-Inspector at Police Training College, Junagadh, the appellant along with two ADI & 73 Unarmed Recruit Police Constables were sent to Palanpur on 07.12.1992 for Bandobast. Thereafter, the appellant was entrusted Rs.36,500/- towards the salary of the said 73 Unarmed Recruit Police Constables (Rs.500 for each) and the appellant along with Security Guard was sent to Palanpur on 10.12.1992 for disbursement of the salary amount. Thereafter, the appellant had prepared advance receipt for the payment of Rs.500/- and then paid Rs.400/- to 58 Unarmed Recruit Police Constables and had kept Rs.100/- with him and thereby misused the powers and misappropriated Rs.5800/-. When the said Unarmed Recruit Police Constables came back from Palanpur, they made oral representation to the Vice Principal of the Police Training College, Junagadh and preliminary inquiry was made. Thus, the appellant had committed misappropriation of funds on 11 & 12.12.1992 whereas a show-cause notice resulting in departmental inquiry was issued on 16.01.1993 and later on, the order of dismissal was ultimately passed on 18.05.1998. Considering the above position, learned Assistant Government Pleader submitted that there is no substance in the submission of the appellant that after a period of three months, proceedings have been initiated.
We have carefully gone through the impugned order dated 08.10.2002 passed by the Learned Single Judge in Special Civil Application No.7348 of 1999. The relevant observations made by the Learned Single Judge in paragraph 10 to 12 is extracted below :-
"10. It was first contended on behalf of the petitioner that there was considerable delay in conducting the inquiry and/or there was delay in initiating the proceedings resulting in the inquiry. This contention cannot be sustained on the facts of the case. As is obvious from the charge-sheet and from the evidence on record, the petitioner has committed misappropriation of funds on 11th and 12th December 1992, whereas a show-cause notice resulting in a departmental inquiry was issued on 16th January 1993, and the order of dismissal was ultimately passed on 18th May 1998. It is, therefore, obvious that there was a delay of just about two months in initiation of the inquiry, whereas the inquiry was completed in approximately five years. This cannot be said to be an undue delay, particularly inasmuch as part of the delay in concluding the inquiry was on account of the fact that the inquiry officers were required to be changed from time to time due to exigencies of service.
11. It was also sought to be contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that copy of the inquiry report was not given to the petitioner. However, this contention cannot be sustained in view of the affidavit filed by the respondents at page 109 of the present petition. Para 3 of the said affidavit specifically states that the copy of the Inquiry Officer's report was served upon the petitioner on 16th January 1998, along with the show-cause notice (i.e. second show-cause notice calling upon the petitioner to show-cause against the proposed punishment). The same averment also shows that the petitioner had received a copy of the Inquiry Officer's report by acknowledging the same under his signature. This contention, therefore, cannot be sustained.
12. The petitioner also seeks to contend that at various stages and on various occasions he had sought various documents from the authorities which were not supplied to him. What is required to be noted in the context of a submission of this nature is that a delinquent is entitled to copies of all documents which form part of the evidence of the disciplinary inquiry and upon which the Inquiry Officer has placed reliance. However, the petitioner/delinquent is not entitled to copies of other documents and/or other correspondence, which do not form part of the record of the disciplinary inquiry and upon which the Inquiry Officer cannot possibly place any reliance. The documents in respect of which the petitioner wishes to make a grievance are not documents on the record of the disciplinary inquiry. In the context of the petitioner's contention it appears that the petitioner had sought copies of documents which may have some bearing in the preliminary inquiry, whose only purpose was to establish whether a regular disciplinary inquiry should be held against the petitioner or not. This is in the nature of a discreet inquiry, with which the petitioner has no concern. As long as all documents, which form the evidence in the disciplinary inquiry and upon which the Inquiry Officer places reliance are supplied, no grievance can be made. However, the petitioner is unable to point out or even to contend that any such document which was substantive evidence on the record of the disciplinary inquiry was not supplied to him."
We do not find any illegality committed by the Learned Single Judge. We are in complete agreement with the reasons recorded by the Learned Single Judge. In the result, the present appeal fails and it is accordingly rejected. Parties shall bear their own costs.
Sd/-
[V. M. SAHAI, J.] Sd/-
[G. B. SHAH, J.] Savariya Top