* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
RSA No. 199 of 2007
Date of Decision : 29-08-2008
Kapur Singh ..... Appellant
Through: Ms.Madhu Moolchandani Advocate
versus
Central Industrial Security Force ..... Respondent
CORAM:
HON'BLE MISS JUSTICE REKHA SHARMA
1. Whether the reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
judgment? Yes
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? Yes
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the „Digest‟? Yes
REKHA SHARMA, J.
The appellant Kapur Singh was working as Naik in Central
Industrial Security Force. On August 10,1984 he was placed under
suspension under Rule 29-A read with Schedule II of Central Industrial
Security Force (CISF) Rules, 1969 on the allegation that he had
committed theft of one Harrison lock, one back view mirror and one
pair of white gloves from a car while on duty at the road accident site
on August 8,1984. Consequent to his suspension departmental enquiry
was conducted against him and vide order dated February 15,1985 he
was inflicted the punishment of reversion to the lower post of
Constable for a period of two years and was to be restored to the post
of Naik only if found fit. The appellant preferred appeal against the
order of punishment to the Deputy Inspector General, CISF but the
RSA 199/07 Page 1 of 5
same was rejected vide order dated May 18,1985. Aggrieved by the
order of reversion and rejection of his appeal the appellant filed a suit
in the court of Civil Judge, Delhi seeking decree of declaration to the
effect that the order of punishment dated February 15, 1985 be
declared illegal, invalid and inoperative and a further declaration that
he became entitled to be restored to the post of Naik soon after
February 15,1987. The appellant also claimed the relief that the
adverse remarks conveyed to him vide memorandum dated February
19, 1985, March 19,1987, May 9,1989 and June 21,1989 be declared
illegal and invalid. The Learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit on the
ground that in so far as the prayers seeking declaration with regard to
the reversion and recording of remarks dated February 19, 1985 and
March 19,1987 were concerned the same were barred by time. The
Civil Judge also found no irregularity in the enquiry conducted against
the appellant or any malafides on the part of the authorities in
inflicting the punishment of reversion on the appellant or in the
recording of the adverse remarks. The Judgment of the Civil Judge was
challenged in appeal by the appellant before the Additional District
Judge who concurred with the findings of the Civil Judge and
accordingly vide order dated April 30,2007 dismissed the appeal. The
present appeal has been preferred assailing the judgment of the
Additional District Judge.
As noticed above, the relief sought by the appellant before the
Civil Judge was that the order of reversion dated February 15,1985
which was upheld by the appellate authority on May 18,1985 was bad
and inoperative. The appellant also sought relief that the adverse
remarks conveyed to him vide memorandum dated February 19, 1985,
RSA 199/07 Page 2 of 5
March 19,1987, May 9,1989 and June 21,1989 be declared illegal and
invalid. It is not disputed that the period of limitation for filing a suit of
declaration and injunction is three years from the date of accrual of the
cause of action. The appellant had filed the suit on July 16,1990. There
can be no doubt that reckoned from the date of order of reversion
dated February 15,1985 and the order of the appellant authority
confirming the said order on May 18,1985, the suit which was filed on
July 16,1990 was clearly barred by time. The Civil Judge was thus
justified in holding that the suit was barred by time vis-à-vis the above
reliefs. The learned Additional District Judge rightly did not interfere
with the findings of the Civil Judge. The learned Civil Judge had also
dealt with the merits of the case and found no irregularity in the
enquiry conducted against him. The learned Additional District Judge
agreed with the finding of the Civil Judge. I find no reason to interfere
with the concurrent findings of the courts below.
It is well settled that the Courts and Tribunals do not sit in appeal
against the findings of the Inquiry Officer and cannot substitute their
own views in place of the Disciplinary Authority. The Courts will not
weigh the merits and demerits of rival versions. If on the evidence on
record, the view taken is plausible then that would be the end of the
matter as far as the challenge to the finding recorded by Inquiry Officer
is concerned. Plausibility of the other view is no ground for judicial
interference to upset the findings of the Inquiry Officer. The Apex Court
in the case of Director General, RPF & Others Vs. Ch. Sai Babu
reported in (2003) 4 SCC 331 has laid down the parameters within
which the Courts can interfere in matters of departmental inquiry and
has held as under:-
RSA 199/07 Page 3 of 5
“Normally, the punishment imposed by a Disciplinary Authority
should not be disturbed by the High Court or a Tribunal except in
appropriate cases that too only after reaching a conclusion that the
punishment imposed is grossly or shockingly disproportionate after
examining all the relevant facts including the nature of charges proved
against the past conduct, penalty imposed earlier, the nature of duties
assigned having due regard to their sensitiveness, exactness expected
of and discipline required to be maintained and the department
/establishment in which the delinquent person concerned works”
Similarly in relation to the recording of adverse remarks, it has
been held by the Apex Court in the case of Badrinath Vs. Government
of Tamil Nadu & Ors. 2000 (6) Scale 618 that the Courts and Tribunals
cannot sit as Appellate Authorities nor substitute their own views to the
views of the Departmental Promotion Committees. Therefore,
challenge by the appellant to the recording of adverse remarks also
cannot be sustained. The learned Additional District Judge in the
impugned judgment has held that the evidence led by the appellant
before the learned Trial Court shows that the principles of natural
justice were followed in conducting the enquiry by the Disciplinary
Authority. The appellant was given sufficient opportunities. He filed
appeals and revisions which were rejected. His case was considered by
all the Departmental Promotion Committee after the period of two
years from the said punishment order dated February 15,1985 but did
not find him fit.
Having regard to the judgment of the Civil Judge and of the
Additional District Judge giving detailed reasons for not accepting the
suit and the appeal respectively, I find no ground to interfere in the
RSA 199/07 Page 4 of 5
same. The appellant has failed to raise any question of law much less
substantial question of law which may require consideration by this
court.
The appeal is dismissed.
REKHA SHARMA, J.
AUGUST 29, 2008
g
RSA 199/07 Page 5 of 5