* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved On: 6th September, 2011
Judgment Delivered On: 16th September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 5518/2011
EX.CONST.KRISHAN KUMAR ..... Petitioner
Through: Ms.Rekha Palli, Advocate and
Ms.Amrita Prakash, Advocate.
versus
UOI & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr.Sachin Datta, Advocate and
Mr.Abhimanyu Kumar, Advocate
with Mr.Ashok Tikku, Deputy
Commandant, CISF.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed
to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
Digest?
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.
1. For the security of Sh.S.S.Libra, Member of Parliament,
a Central Industrial Security Force Outpost was established
outside his residence at village Libra in Punjab. 14 Force
personnel were deputed under the command of SI Sanat
Hasda. He was the senior-most officer. The other members
of the Unit were HC Amar Singh, HC Gurnam Singh, HC
Parmatma Rai, Ct.Tej Singh, Ct.Parvez Ahmed, Ct.Krishan
Kumar, Ct.Desai Kiran, Ct.Santosh Kumar, Ct.Shish Ram,
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 1 of 21
Ct.Shahabad Khan, Ct.Ram Sarup, Ct.Sapan Singh and
Ct.Lakhbir Kumar.
2. On 3.3.2010 SI Sanat Hasda, Ct.Sapan Singh and
Ct.Shahbad Khan accompanied Shri S.S.Libra to New Delhi
for his personal security and SI Sanat Hasda claimed to have
received information on his mobile phone from HC Amar
Singh that an AK-47 rifle bearing Butt No.151 issued in the
name of the petitioner was missing from the Outpost and
that he gave orders to conduct an extensive search to
locate the rifle which could not be found in spite of intensive
search and thus the matter was reported to the
Commandant of the Unit. On 8.3.2010, upon information
given by Ct.Shish Ram, the rifle was recovered from inside a
dry well in the village Libra.
3. It is natural that the incident was investigated and
indeed we would have been surprised if it was not
investigated for the reason an AK-47 rifle has to be kept in
proper custody by force personnel to whom it is issued and
not that the rifle can be played around as akin to a toy. The
department investigated the matter and during
investigation which was conducted by Dy.Commandant
Ashok Tikku statements of various persons were recorded as
also the duty deployment register, arms and ammunition
issue register and other registers pertaining to the post
personnel leaving the post were looked into and were
seized.
4. It is the case of the department that the preliminary
inquiry conducted by DC Ashok Tikku revealed, as per
statement of Ct.Tej Singh that he saw the rifle lying
abandoned on petitioner‟s bed and since he was angry with
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 2 of 21
the petitioner he picked up the rifle and threw it outside the
boundary wall of the outpost. As per HC Parmatma Rai the
petitioner told him on 3.3.2010 that his rifle was missing
which information he tried to pass on to SI Sanat Hasda over
the telephone but could not contact him and later on HC
Amar Singh claimed to have been able to make a contact
with SI Sanat Hasda and information passed on to him of the
rifle being missing. The duty register showed white fluid
being used to erase existing writing pertaining to duties
performed by the petitioner and since the duty has to be
performed with an arm, the relevance thereof is to show
that the AK-47 rifle in question was with the petitioner till it
was lost on 3.3.2010. The mobile phone call details of 3
telephones were procured. Mobile phone number of SI
Santa Hasda being 9370553713, that of the petitioner being
9541423060 and that of HC Parmatma Rai being
9023412395 were obtained from the service provider which
included the particulars of the tower location as and when a
call was made or received through the said telephones. The
call details received showed that the petitioner had on
28.2.2010 at 19:53:32 hours made a call to a number which
was routed through the mobile tower near Kaushal Nursing
Home in Rajpura (Punjab). By 21:14:26 hours the mobile
phone had been used to make a call routed through the
mobile tower at Bhagwan Nagar Colony, Pipli (Kurukshetra)
Haryana. At 21:48:08 hours said phone was used to make a
call routed through the mobile tower at Samna Bahu
Nilokheri (Haryana). The call details further revealed that
on 2.3.2010 at 17:36:13 hours a call was made through the
said mobile phone routed through a mobile tower at Patel
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 3 of 21
Nagar, Kurukshetra (Haryana); at 18:57:54 hours a call was
made through said number routed through a mobile tower
at Palika Vihar, Ambala (Haryana). At 21:23:45 hours a call
was made through said mobile phone which was routed
through a tower at Mohan Pur, Ludhiana, Punjab. Needless
to state the incriminating value of the said call details was
the absence of the petitioner from the outpost on 28.2.2010
and 2.3.2010. The statement of the cook at the mess of the
outpost Cook Deepak was recorded as per which the
petitioner had not taken meals at the mess from the night of
28.2.2010 till 2.3.2010. Thus, evidence surfaced of
petitioner‟s absence from the outpost from the evening of
28.2.2010 till he returned in the evening of 2.3.2010. There
was no record of the petitioner having entrusted the AK-47
rifle to his immediate superior officer which had to be one of
three head constables at the outpost and we may note that
inchoate evidence surfaced that it was HC Parmatma Rai to
whom the weapon had to be entrusted. It was prima facie
apparent that all force personnel had colluded to hide the
truth and probably the rifle went missing not on 3.3.2010
but earlier and in any case information was available of the
same being missing on 3.3.2010 and not 4.3.2010 for the
reason the call details of the telephone of HC Parmatma Rai
and SI Sanat Hasda spoke to each other on 3.3.2010 at
21:30:25 hours and the claim of HC Parmatma Rai that he
could not contact SI Sanat Hasda in spite of he having tried
to do so was false. The statements of the force personnel
that the petitioner had remained on duty on all the three
days i.e. 28.2.2010, 1.3.2010 and 2.3.2010 was prima facie
found to be false and this suggested a collusion amongst all.
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 4 of 21
5. All 14 personnel were charge sheeted and we highlight
that the nature of charge differed from person to person.
6. The charge sheet dated 14.4.2010 issued to the
petitioner listed only one article of charge as under:-
“That CISF No.961400620 Constable (GD) Krishan
Kumar of CISF Unit, SSG, Greater Noida, (UP) while
deployed on duty at Libra out post (Distt: Ludhiana,
Punjab), Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha, failed to
ensure proper safety and security of the said weapon
and left the duty post on 28.02.2010 keeping his
weapon unattended on his bed. As a result, AK-47
rifle bearing Butt No.151 issued to the said Constable
was found missing on 28.02.2010. He reported at
the duty post on 03.03.2010 and intimated the facts
about missing of his weapon, AK-47 rifle to HC (GD)
P.Rai at about 2045 hrs. on 03.03.2010. The said
weapon was subsequently, found on 08.3.2010 in a
Dry Well at village Libra. Such serious acts on his
part tantamount to gross act of indiscipline,
dereliction of duty, unbecoming of a member of the
Disciplined Armed Force like CISF. Hence, the
charge.”
7. Why no joint inquiry was conducted, when queried by
us, from learned counsel for the respondent was responded
to by informing us that there is no rule in the CISF Rules
which permits a joint inquiry.
8. A perusal of the charge would reveal that it has 2
distinct limbs thereto. First is the charge of having left the
duty outpost on 28.2.2010 and reporting back on 3.3.2010.
The second is of leaving the AK-47 rifle bearing Butt No.151
unattended on the bed and as a result thereof the rifle being
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 5 of 21
found missing but subsequently recovered from a dry well
on 8.3.2010.
9. We must highlight that the charge should have been of
not having left the duty post but of having left the duty post
in an unauthorized manner, for the reason unless the rules
prohibit a person from leaving a duty post without
intimation or permission, there is nothing wrong for a
person to leave the duty post while not on actual duty. We
are highlighting so for the reason we are noticing loose and
laconic charge sheets issued by CISF and one reason for the
same, as told to us is that CISF does not have a proper legal
department. We note that in our Court CISF is represented
by Assistant Commandant Abdus Salam who acts as the
Pairvi Officer and has been so acting in this Court for the
last 1½ years and as told to us he is not from the legal
department but has been attached with the litigation cell as
he has a degree in law. We hope and expect Director
General CISF to look into the matter and strengthen the
legal department by obtaining the sanction of the Cadre
Controlling Ministry to create appropriate posts.
10. We need to further highlight that a charge needed to
be framed against the petitioner of having colluded to make
interpolations in the duty register for the reason using white
fluid existing entries were tampered with on the dates
1.3.2010 and 2.3.2010 and all of them pertained to
petitioner being shown on duty.
11. Be that as it may, the inquiry proceeded on the sole
charge, having two limbs as afore explained.
12. Dy.Comdt. G.C.Chattopadhyay was detailed as the
Inquiry Officer. At the departmental inquiry, the prosecution
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 6 of 21
examined 8 witnesses and no defence evidence was
produced by the petitioner.
13. DC Ashok Tikku PW-1 who conducted the preliminary
inquiry deposed that on 4.3.2010 the Commandant of the
Unit informed him that an AK-47 Rifle bearing Butt No.151
issued to the petitioner was missing from SSG Libra Outpost.
He was deputed to enquire into the incident and to search
the missing rifle and he began his investigation on 4.3.2010.
Upon perusal of the Arms and Ammunition Register, it
transpired that AK-47 Rifle bearing Butt No.151 was issued
to the petitioner, as recorded on pages 26 & 27 of the
register PW-1/Ex.P-1. It further transpired that on 28.2.2010,
after performing first shift duty, the petitioner went missing
from the camp. That in the statement PW-1/Ex.P-2 dated
11.3.2010 recorded by him and as made by Ct.Tej Singh it
stands recorded that the petitioner remained absent from
the camp from 28.2.2010 to 02.3.2010 leaving his rifle
unattended on his bed and as per the statement PW-1/Ex.P-
3 of private cook Deepak Kumar, the petitioner had not
taken food from the mess from 28.2.2010 to 2.3.2010.
Further, the mobile phone calls and tower location details
PW-1/Ex.P-4 taken from telephone exchange for the mobile
numbers belonging to the petitioner, given by him during
the enquiry, revealed that the petitioner was at Haryana
from 28.2.2010 at about 18:53:02 hours to 2.3.2010 at
about 21:23:45 hours. The missing Rifle was found in a dry
well near Libra Outpost and an FIR PW-1/Ex.P-5, in this
regard was lodged at the Sadar Khanna Police Station,
Ludhiana. That in order to show that the petitioner was on
duty on 1.03.2010 and 2.3.2010 manipulations were made
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 7 of 21
in the duty deployment register dated 1.03.2010 as well as
2.3.2010 PW-1/Ex.P-6 by applying fluid over a few entries
and inserting name of the petitioner therein.
14. On being cross-examined by the petitioner, he clarified
that on earlier occasions fluid was used to make changes in
the duty deployment register in regards to the duties
assigned, but clarified that in the register pertaining to the
dates 1.3.2010 and 2.3.2010, fluid was applied to insert
name of the petitioner next to Escort Duty and Night Shift
Duty.
15. It is apparent from the statement of PW-1 that in view
of the fact that there was tell-tale evidence of petitioner
making or receiving telephone calls from his mobile number
during the day time and in particular the evening of
28.2.2010 and 2.3.2010, entries were so made in the duty
register after applying fluid on the existing entries and over
writing thereon to show that the petitioner performed duties
in the night or as an Escort.
16. SI (Exe.) Sanat Hasda PW-2 deposed that on 3.3.2010
morning he left the Libra Camp and accompanied
Sh.S.S.Libra up to New Delhi. On 4.3.2010 at about 08:00
hours he received information from HC Amar Singh that one
AK-47 rifle was missing since previous night. He directed HC
Amar Singh to check properly and report to him. At about
10:00 hours, HC Amar Singh informed him that the rifle
could not be traced. He telephonically informed the
Commandant of the unit about the incident and after
briefing the DIG at Gr.Noida camp, he left for Libra Outpost.
At the outpost he engaged all personnel to search for the
missing rifle. On 5.3.2010 an FIR was lodged with the local
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 8 of 21
police reporting a missing AK-47 rifle. On 8.3.2010 upon
receiving information from Ct.Shish Ram that an AK-47 rifle
was lying inside a well in the Libra village, he went to the
spot with other CISF personnel and on reaching, sent Driver
Gaikward inside the well who confirmed that AK-47 Bearing
Butt No.151 was lying inside the well. He immediately
informed DC Ashok Tikku and in the presence of Local
Police, the Rifle was brought out of the well.
17. On being declared hostile and cross-examined by the
Presenting Officer, he stated that the AK-47 rifle bearing
butt No.151 was issued in the name of the petitioner. As per
orders given by him, all personnel were to keep their
weapons with them as there was no Kote (a place to keep
the weapons) at the outpost. During Preliminary Enquiry all
personnel had deposited their mobile phones with DC Ashok
Tikku. Mobile No.9541423060 was not issued to the
petitioner by the department but it could be his private
number. That the petitioner was present in the camp on
28.3.2010 and on 1.3.2010, on which day he performed
Escort Duty and also on 2.3.2010, on which day he
performed watcher cum night PSO duty with Golka pistol
Butt No.212. He further stated that HC P.Rai marked duties
of personnel and for the purpose of assigning correct duties;
he used fluid on the Duty Deployment Register. In reply to
the telephone exchange details showing presence of
petitioner‟s mobile in Haryana, he stated that Shri. S.S.Libra
often toured in areas near Haryana and he was not in the
outpost on 1.3.2010 from 08:30 AM to 06:30 PM and on
2.3.2010 from 08:30 AM to 06:30 PM.
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 9 of 21
18. HC Amar Singh PW-3 deposed that his statement given
during Preliminary Enquiry be taken as his deposition for the
departmental Inquiry. At the Preliminary Enquiry he stated
that on 3.3.2010 at about 20:45 Hours the petitioner came
to him and reported that his rifle was missing. He
immediately directed all post personnel to assemble and
tallied their weapons from the issue register whereupon it
transpired that AK-47 bearing Butt No.151 issued to the
petitioner was missing. Attempts were made to search the
rifle but it could not be found. On 4.3.2010 at about 8:00
hours he reported the matter to SI Sanat Hasda and asked
him to check weapons of personnel present with him and as
per his orders they conducted a further search of the Libra
outpost area but the rifle could not be found which was
reported to SI Sanat Hasda at about 10:00 hours. On
8.3.2010 at about 17:30 hours information was received
that during a search operation a weapon was found lying in
a well. He along with other personnel reached the spot
where driver Gaikwad was sent inside the well and it was
confirmed that the weapon was an AK-47 Rifle bearing Butt
No.151 which was then recovered from the well in the
presence of local police and taken to the camp.
19. On being cross-examined by the Presenting Officer
after being declared hostile, he stated that DC Ashok Tikku
at Libra Outpost conducted an enquiry into the matter
during which mobile phone numbers of the unit personnel
were recorded by Ct.Pratap Singh and as per the list PW-
3/Ex.P-1, mobile number 9541423060 was in the name of
the petitioner. No outsider entered the outpost on
28.2.2010. He saw petitioner perform „A‟ Shift duty on
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 10 of 21
28.2.2010 at 12:55 hours; Escort duty on 1.3.2010 at 08:30
Hours and night watcher duty on 2.3.2010. That on 1.3.2010
petitioner had his AK-47 rifle with him on duty. He stated he
had no knowledge as to how petitioner‟s mobile phone
details and its corresponding tower location details
indicated its presence at Haryana.
20. HC P.Rai PW-4 deposed that his statement given
during Preliminary Enquiry be taken as his deposition for the
departmental Inquiry. At the Preliminary Enquiry he stated
that at about 20:45 Hours the petitioner came to him and
reported about his rifle missing from his locker. He went
along with the petitioner to check for the weapon in the
Almirah where petitioner‟s rifle bearing Butt no.151 was not
found. He ordered for a Fall-in of all post personnel and
tallied their weapons with the register and found that AK-47
bearing Butt No.151 issued to the petitioner was missing.
Attempts were made to search the rifle but it could not be
found. HC Amar Singh reported about matter to SI Sanat
Hasda over the telephone who was in New Delhi at the time
and following his directions conducted another search
operation to find the rifle but without any success. The
search went on for a few days. He corroborated PW-3 to the
extent that the rifle was recovered on 08.03.2010 at about
17:45 hours from a well in the village in the presence of
local police.
21. On being declared hostile, he was cross-examined by
the Presenting Officer upon which he stated that during
preliminary enquiry Ct.Pratap Singh noted mobile numbers
of post personnel as told by them. That the petitioner was
present at the outpost from 28.2.2010 to 2.3.2010 and he
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 11 of 21
had performed escort duty with his AK-47 rifle on 1.3.2010.
As per orders, personnel kept weapons with themselves
however there was a locker in one of the rooms at the
outpost wherein some personnel kept their weapons and he
had the key to that locker. As per orders of SI Sanat Hasda
he used to mark duties to post personnel. He admitted
having made changes in the Duty Deployment Register of
1.3.2010, 2.3.2010 and 3.3.2010 by applying fluid and
inserting name of the petitioner therein. He clarified that
many times changes were made in the register by applying
fluid for adjusting duties as there is a shortage of personnel
at the outpost. On 3.3.2010 at night an Escort vehicle was
called to the outpost as a precaution if there be a need to
travel in search of the weapon but it was sent back.
22. Ct.Tej Singh PW-5 deposed that on 3.3.2010 at about
21:00 hours he came to know that rifle bearing Butt No.151
belonging to the petitioner was missing and that he along
with other personnel had tried to search the rifle but could
not find it. He further stated that the statement shown to be
made by him during Preliminary Enquiry is false, as his
signatures were obtained on blank papers by DC Ashok
Tikku on the pretext that it was being done pursuant to
orders by the Inspector General. That along with 2 other
personnel he was sent to the police station upon the
assurance that only a few questions will be asked regarding
the missing rifle and the FIR lodged in that respect, but at
the police station he was arrested in connection with the
FIR.
23. He too was declared hostile and cross-examined by
the presenting officer upon which he stated that during
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 12 of 21
enquiry conducted by DC Ashok Tikku mobile number of
Libra outpost personnel were noted. Petitioner‟s name is
recorded next to mobile no. 9541423060 in the list prepared
during the enquiry. That the petitioner had performed Escort
Duty on 1.3.2010 and „B‟ shift duty on 2.3.2010. He stated
that since he did not have any higher authority‟s telephone
number he could not inform anybody about being misled to
sign blank papers by DC Ashok Tikku and that since all post
personnel were engaged in searching for the rifle he did not
report the matter to any personnel either.
24. SI G.S.Chaudhry PW-6 deposed that as per directions
of senior officers he extracted call details and tower location
details of Mobile Phone no.9370553713 PW-6/Ex.P-1, which
belonged to SI Sanat Hasda which revealed that he made a
call to mobile no. 9023412395, which belonged to HC P.Rai
as per PW-3/Ex.P-1, on 3.3.2010 at 21:30:25 hours at which
time, as per tower location, he was in Punjab. On 4.3.2010
at 4:47:23 hours and 6:25:07 hours calls were made from
Sanat Hasda‟s mobile phone to mobile phone of HC P.Rai at
which time Sanat Hasda was in Haryana and Delhi
respectively.
25. Balbir Singh PW-7 deposed that his statement given
during Preliminary Enquiry be taken as his deposition for the
departmental Inquiry; wherein he stated that he used to
supply escort vehicle on hire basis to CISF and that on
3.3.2010 at about 12PM he supplied a vehicle driven by
Darshan Singh to the Libra outpost which was taken to Delhi
to drop of some officers.
26. Darshan Singh PW-8 deposed that his statement given
during Preliminary Enquiry be taken as his deposition for the
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 13 of 21
departmental Inquiry. At the Preliminary Enquiry he stated
that he was the driver of the escort duty vehicle that carried
SI Sanat Hasda to Delhi on 3.3.2010. On being cross-
examined by the petitioner, he clarified that along with SI
Sanat Hasda he left from the Libra outpost at about 1 PM on
3.3.2010.
27. The petitioner opted not to make any oral statement in
defence and since he desired to give his statement in
writing, the Inquiry Officer acceded to the request and took
on record a written statement filed before him by the
petitioner in which the petitioner stated that on 1.3.2010
after returning from Escort duty at about 18:30 Hours he
took the key of the Almirah where rifles were usually kept,
from HC P.Rai and kept his AK-47 rifle bearing Butt No.151
therein. On 2.3.2010 he performed PSO duty with a pistol.
On 3.3.2010 when he opened the Almirah to take out his
rifle for duty, he found that the rifle was missing. He
reported the matter to HC P.Rai who after searching the
Almirah and the room, conducted a fall in and checked
weapons of all post personnel but his rifle could not be
found. On 4.3.2010 HC P.Rai contacted SI Sanat Hasda and
reported about the missing rifle. On 8.3.2010 pursuant to an
information received, his rifle was recovered from inside a
well in the village with the help of local police.
28. Relevant would it be to note that the petitioner
attached photocopies of General Diary dated 27.2.2010 to
2.3.2010, duty deployment chart dated 28.2.2010 to
2.3.2010 and attendance of mess diet for February 2010
along with his defence statement. However, he did not
tender any of these documents in his statement because of
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 14 of 21
which these documents were not taken into consideration
by the Inquiry Officer, an act which is ex facie wrong for the
reason the written statement in defence was permitted to
be filed in lieu of petitioner making an oral statement.
29. The Inquiry Officer submitted a report dated 16.7.2010
and with reference to the mobile call details highlighted
therein petitioner being absent from the outpost on
28.2.2010 and 2.3.2010 and with reference to the
statement PW-1/Ex.P-3 of private cook Deepak Kumar which
was proved as having been recorded by PW-1 DC Ashok
Tikku held that it was apparent that the petitioner had not
taken meals at the outpost from the evening of 28.2.2010
till the evening of 2.3.2010 and this established his
unauthorized absence from the unit lines. Upon proof of
petitioner being absent and not on duty and there being no
evidence that the petitioner had secured the security of the
AK-47 rifle by putting the same inside that trunk, key
whereof was with HC Parmatma Rai, had contributed, by
way of negligence, to the rifle being picked up and thrown
by Ct.Tej Singh, who in spite of having turned hostile was
disbelieved of his having nothing to do with the rifle and his
statement PW-1/Ex.P-2 recorded by DC Ashok Tikku PW-1
was found to be the correct version. Needless to state it
was opined that contrivance was resorted to by
interpolating the duty register.
30. Supplying the Inquiry Report to the petitioner to
enable him to respond thereto and receiving the response
and considering the same; concurring with the findings
returned by the Inquiry Officer, penalty of removal from
service was inflicted upon the petitioner by the
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 15 of 21
Commandant of the Unit to which the petitioner was
attached as per order dated 21.8.2010 against which appeal
and revision filed were rejected on 28.9.2010 and 15.3.2011
respectively.
31. At the hearing of the writ petition it was urged that the
statement PW-1/Ex.P-3 of private cook Deepak Kumar
purportedly recorded by DC Ashok Tikku PW-1 during
preliminary inquiry could not be considered in evidence
inasmuch as private cook Deepak Kumar was not examined
as a witness. Since the inquiry officer had relied upon the
said statement, it was urged that the report of the Inquiry
Officer was vitiated.
32. Agreeing with the submission advanced that in the
absence of private cook Deepak Kumar being not examined
and not available for cross examination and the statement
not being of a kind which would be res gestae evidence, the
same could not be relied upon, but we disagree with the
conclusion sought to be drawn by learned counsel for the
petitioner for the reason after removing the said statement
as admissible evidence, we still have evidence in the form of
the mobile phone details, in respect whereof we have made
prima facie observations in para 4 hereinabove and now, in
view of the evidence led and proof of the mobile phone call
details, we accord our concurrence to the incriminating
evidence which has surfaced and the weight thereof being
petitioner‟s absence from the duty outpost from 19:53:32
hours on 28.2.2010 and his being roaming around in
Haryana and present in Nilokheri, a township at a distance
of at least 3 hours journey from the duty outpost at Libra as
also petitioner being roaming around in Kurukshetra,
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 16 of 21
Ambala and Ludhiana on 2.3.2010. Thus, even if we were to
remove the evidentiary worth of private cook Deepak
Kumar‟s statement PW-1/Ex.P-3 we still have sufficient
evidence against the petitioner and thus the taint in the
report of the Inquiry Officer does not vitiate the same i.e.
the wound is not sufficient to bleed the inquiry report to
death.
33. From the testimony of HC Parmatma Rai PW-4 we have
proof that at the outpost there was no place secured to
deposit the weapon issued to a force personnel during the
hours the force personnel was not on duty and the
substitute was a trunk kept at the outpost, key whereof was
with HC Parmatma Rai. The weapon issued had to be kept
in the trunk. It is apparent that the petitioner never kept
the AK-47 Rifle in the trunk for the reason HC Parmatma Rai
has not deposed that the petitioner had taken the key of the
trunk from him to keep the rifle. The act of the petitioner in
telling HC Parmatma Rai to give him the key so that he
could retrieve the AK-47 rifle and none being found therein
is obviously a device to create a smokescreen as if the AK-
47 rifle was kept in the trunk. Only if HC Parmatma Rai had
said that on a previous day the petitioner took the key of
the trunk from him telling him that he required the key to
keep the AK-47 rifle issued to him in the trunk could we
have understood the relevance of the petitioner, on a
subsequent day, requesting for the key to be handed over
to him so that he could retrieve the AK-47 Rifle. The nail in
the coffin of the lie webbed by the petitioner is the fact that
as per him he always remained at the duty outpost and
never left the same. Where was then the question of his
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 17 of 21
keeping the AK-47 Rifle in the trunk, key whereof was with
HC Parmatma Rai.
34. There is tell-tale evidence against the petitioner and
we do not dissect the nitty gritties thereof inasmuch as we
remind ourselves and the reader of our decision that our
decision relates not to our appellate but to our supervisory
jurisdiction and pertaining to domestic inquiries our job is to
see whether the procedures of the law were followed and
there is fairness in the inquiry and relating to evidence our
job would be to see whether it is a case of no evidence or it
is a case where inadmissible evidence has been admitted or
admissible evidence excluded in the inquiry report or by the
disciplinary authority. Indeed, we have found one taint of
inadmissible evidence being considered i.e. the statement
PW-1/Ex.P-3 of private cook Deepak Kumar which we have
excluded as evidence and yet reach the same conclusion.
35. We are excluding to debate upon the issue whether HC
Parmatma Rai had spoken to SI Sanat Hasda on 3.3.2010 or
could not do so as claimed by HC Parmatma Rai for the
reason, qua the charge against the petitioner the same is
irrelevant. The debate would be relevant qua HC Parmatma
Rai for if it is true that he spoke to SI Sanat Hasda on
3.3.2010 it would be relevant that he did not pass on the
relevant information of the AK-47 Rifle being found missing.
36. Before bringing the curtains down on the sordid
drama, in addition to the words of counsel to the Director
General CISF pertaining to strengthening the legal
department of CISF as per para 9 hereinabove, we
regretfully bring to the notice of the Director General CISF
that the instant case brings out a serious lacuna in the
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 18 of 21
procedures followed by CISF to secure the arms issued to
the force personnel at duty outpost. No room or a container
was earmarked under a specific order to keep in secure
custody firearms issued to the force personnel at the duty
outpost at Libra. An ad hoc solution was resorted to by
keeping a trunk with key in custody of HC Parmatma Rai.
No procedures were followed to maintain a register and
enter therein the safe custody of weapons by the force
personnel at the outpost. As told to us during hearing of the
writ petition the force personnel perform duties by rotation
spanning 3 to 6 hours at a stretch and we see no reason
why during the remainder period when the force personnel
is not performing actual duties he should not be required to
keep in safe custody the firearm issued to him. We were
told that when they sleep or enter ablutions, the force
personnel keep the arms by their side and this we find to be
a very dangerous practice for the reason: Reap as you sow,
guides us that given a work environment which is specious
invites callousness and negligence.
37. On the issue of the proportionality of the sentence
imposed it was urged that Ct.Sapan Singh, Ct.Shahbad
Khan, Ct.Ram Swaroop and Ct.Lakhvir Kumar were inflicted
with the penalty of reduction to lower stage of pay for a
period of 3 years with cumulative effect and that the
petitioner was inflicted a higher punishment.
38. The argument ignores that the charge against said 4
officers was of hiding the truth and lying about petitioner
being present at the duty outpost. It is apparent that the
charge against the 4 was of a much lower degree of
culpability. The petitioner not only abandoned the duty
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 19 of 21
outpost without any authority, he colluded to fudge the duty
register with the active assistance of HC Parmatma Rai and
SI Sanat Hasda and his collusion is apparent as he is the
beneficiary of the interpolations. While leaving the duty
post he did not ensure safe custody of the AK-47 Rifle issued
to him. He merrily loitered around Punjab and Haryana and
due to his negligence the weapon was thrown inside the
well. As force personnel who carry arms the petitioner knew
that an AK-47 Rifle is a lethal weapon and God forbid if it
reached wrong hands, the consequences would have been
disastrous. The petitioner cannot claim any parity on the
issue of sentence with the said 4 force personnel. There is
another qualitative difference in the case of the petitioner
and the said 4 force personnel. After initial resistance, all
confessed to their guilt before the Commandant and
keeping in view that the four repented after admitting their
guilt and that a lessor degree of wrong was committed by
them, a lessor penalty was levied upon them.
39. We find no merit in the writ petition and dismiss the
same.
40. We direct that a copy of our decision be placed before
DG CISF, so that he can look into the deficiencies in the CISF
which have surfaced in the instant case and in particular
would consider strengthening the legal department so that
properly drafted charge sheets can be issued and better
court assistance rendered through legally trained persons
and not by resorting to ad-hoc arrangements by deputing
Pairvi Officers with no legal background. Further, with
respect to securing arms issued to force personnel at duty
outposts a proper procedure be prescribed and record be
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 20 of 21
maintained with respect to the arms and ammunitions
issued to CISF force personnel.
41. Since the petitioner has lost his job we refrain from
imposing costs.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 16, 2011
mm
W.P.(C) No.5518/2011 Page 21 of 21