* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 20th September, 2011
Judgment Pronounced on: 26th September, 2011
+ W.P.(C) 638/1999
RAJBIR SINGH ....Petitioner
Through: Mr.Kul Bharat, Advocate for
Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr.Abdus Salam, Asst.Cmdt., 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. Upon a complaint made by SI Mahender Singh
alleging that the petitioner, a constable with Central Industrial
Security Force, deserted his duty post on 6.7.1997, the
Commandant of the unit BNP Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) issued
a charge sheet dated 23.08.1997 against the petitioner listing
2 Articles of Charge which read as under:-
“CHARGE NO.01
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 1 of 14
Serious negligence of duty, violation of lawful
orders and gross indiscipline i.e. Force
No.902334728 Constable (Under suspension) Rajbir
Singh, C.I.S.F. Unit Bank Note Press, Devas (M.P.)
who was deputed at Chandigarh Dispatch Security
duty along with Rifle 7.62 MM Butt No.52 and 50
Rounds under the subordination of Party In charge
Dy.Inspector/Work Mahender Singh on dated
05.7.97, remained absent unauthorizedly without
the prior permission/sanction of competent
authority along with 50 Rounds from 06.7.97 and
remained absconder till 17.7.97, which is a serious
offence under Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act.
CHARGE NO.2
Serious carelessness and indiscipline i.e. Force
No.902334728 Constable (Under Suspension) Rajbir
Singh, C.I.S.F. Unit, Bank Note Press, Devas (M.P.)
who was deputed at Chandigarh Dispatch Security
duty along with Rifle No.R/BA/52/A-01291, 7.62 and
50 rounds under the subordination of Party In
charge Dy.Inspector/Works Mahender Singh on
dated 05.7.97 but on 06.7.97 during the duties at
Dispatch Security left his rifle carelessly and
remained absconded with 50 rounds.”
2. It needs to be highlighted that the indictment is
fairly serious inasmuch as the statement of imputation along
with the charge-sheet would evidence that government
currency i.e. notes printed at the Government press at Devas
had to be sent by train to Chandigarh to be delivered at the
Reserve Bank of India. An escort party was constituted under
the command of SI Mahender Singh. The escort party was
issued arms and ammunition. Petitioner was a member of the
escort party. When the currency chests were loaded into the
bogie of the train at Ujjain Railway Station and as the escort
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 2 of 14
party members were putting their luggage inside the next
bogie i.e. the escort bogie, the petitioner disappeared leaving
his rifle behind on a berth in the train, without entrusting
custody thereof to any colleague and took along with him the
50 rounds of ammunition issued to him. A party of 2 officers
went to his village Rewari (Haryana) and found him at his
house on 16.7.1997. The ammunition was recovered at the
instance of the petitioner as he told the said officers that he
had left the ammunition with a friend at Delhi.
3. Insp.A.K.Sharma was appointed as the Inquiry
Officer and at the inquiry 12 witnesses were examined by the
department and as recorded in the proceedings dated
15.9.1997 when petitioner was examined by the Inquiry
Officer, in spite of opportunity granted, the petitioner
examined no witnesses in defence stating that he did not
desire to produce a witness or a document.
4. After recording prosecution evidence, the petitioner
was examined by the inquiry officer on 15.11.1997 on which
date, the petitioner, as noted herein above categorically stated
that he desires to examine none as his witness or file any
document and thereafter the petitioner made a statement in
defence in which he admitted that a party consisting of 7 CISF
Officials, including the petitioner, under the charge of SI
Mahender Singh, was detailed to carry currency from Devas,
Madhya Pradesh to RBI Chandigarh. He stated that on
6.7.1997, after loading the currency notes in the train the
party left for Chandigarh. On the way, at Ujjain railway station,
the officer-in-charge discharged him of his duty and verbally
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 3 of 14
permitted him to leave and join the party at Nizamuddin
Railway Station in Delhi on 11.7.1997 from where they were to
depart for Devas on 12.7.1997. That on 11.7.1997 at about
19:30 hours he reached Nizamuddin Railway Station and
waited for the officials but could not find them. Again on
12.7.1997 he searched for the party but could not find them.
That on 13.7.1997 he made a telephone call from Nizammudin
Railway Station to C.R.O control room to find out if the party
had returned to the unit but SI Madan Singh who answered the
phone call informed him that the party had not returned. That
he kept waiting for the party officials to reach Delhi but finally
on 15.7.1997 he gave up the search and returned home since
due to paucity of funds/money he could not buy a train ticket
to go back to the unit. That on 16.7.1997 he reached home
and within a few hours, SI Toofan Singh and L/Nk. S.V.Golhar
arrived at his house, and he left for Delhi with them, where he
had kept his briefcase containing 50 live rounds of bullets with
a friend. That he handed over the rounds to SI Toofan Singh
who deposited the same in the kote (store) upon reaching the
unit lines on 17.7.1997 at 12:00 hours.
5. On being questioned by the Inquiry Officer
petitioner stated that he had handed over his rifle bearing Butt
No.52 to Nk.Garib Dass and that the Officer-in-charge was
aware of his handing over the rifle and had verbally discharged
him from duty. That he had to take away the 50 rounds of Bolt
Action bullets because Nk.Garib Dass requested him to do so
telling him that his i.e. Nk.Garib Dass‟s luggage had become
heavy.
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 4 of 14
6. It is apparent that the petitioner admitted having
parted company with the escort party at railway station Ujjain
but raised a defence that he was verbally discharged from the
escort party by the Officer-in-charge with a direction that he
should meet the escort party at Nizamuddin Railway Station on
11.7.1997.
7. It is apparent that what the petitioner said was that
he was permitted to rejoin the escort party at Nizamuddin
Railway Station when the escort party would be returning from
Chandigarh after safely delivering the currency chests at RBI
Chandigarh on the way back to Devas.
8. In view of the testimony of the 12 witnesses of the
prosecution, 6 of whom were the members of the escort party,
2 were SI Toofan Singh and L/Nk.S.V.Golhar and the remaining
witnesses were the ones who deposed that the petitioner was
deputed as a member of the escort party and deposed
regarding deposit of arms and ammunitions etc., the Inquiry
Officer vide his report dated 26.11.1997 held both charges
proved. Supplying a copy of report of the inquiry officer to the
petitioner for his response which was made on 15.12.1997 and
received on 16.12.1997, but agreeing with the findings
returned by the Inquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority levied
penalty of removal from service upon the petitioner as per
order dated 17.12.1997 against which appeal filed was
rejected on 4.2.1999. Instant petition challenges the said 2
orders.
9. During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner
urged 3 submissions. Firstly, that the finding of the Inquiry
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 5 of 14
Officer was devoid of reasons supporting the conclusion which
puts a shadow/taint on its veracity and that there wasn‟t
sufficient evidence to prove the charge. Secondly, that the
petitioner was denied opportunity to defend himself by not
being examined as required under Rule 34(6) of CISF Rules
1968. Lastly, that the Disciplinary Authority did not comply
with provision of Rule 34(9) while passing the final order and
only accepted the inquiry report blindly.
10. In regard to the first contention we think it best to
visit the evidence produced at the departmental inquiry and
reproduce a gist of the same for the sake of clarity. At the
outset, we note that in light of the admissions made by the
petitioner in his defence statement, briefly noted in para 4
above, what needs to be seen is whether or not the petitioner
was permitted to part company with the escort party at Ujjain
Railway Station as claimed by the petitioner for the reason he
did not dispute that he was a member of an escort party
entrusted with the duty of securing the security of currency
chests containing currency notes to be deposited at RBI
Chandigarh and that en-route he parted company and never
went to Chandigarh.
11. At the inquiry SI Mahender Singh PW-1 deposed that
on 6.7.1997 after the luggage was loaded in the train the
officers of the escort party boarded the train in a rush and only
after the train started moving he went to check whether all
members of the party were present and found the petitioner
missing. He enquired from other officers but no one whether
the petitioner had boarded the train or not. He searched and
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 6 of 14
found petitioner‟s briefcase missing, however rifle bearing Butt
No.52 issued to the petitioner was found lying unattended
along with the luggage of other officers. He enquired from the
officers whether the petitioner had left the rifle in someone‟s
custody, but none affirmed the same. En-route to Chandigarh
he attempted to contact the Unit and report about the incident
but could make no contact. Upon his return he immediately
deposited petitioner‟s rifle at the kote and made a General
Diary Entry at S.No.428 dated 13.7.1997 at 19:25 hours Ex.PW-
1/10 and recorded therein that on 6.7.1997 at about 18:10
hours, leaving his rifle unattended on a berth, the petitioner
absconded from his duty post without permission or intimation
to any other officer. He i.e. PW-1 also reported about the
incident to the Commandant of the unit.
12. It be highlighted that the witness was cross-
examined by the petitioner and the petitioner did not suggest
to the witness that he had verbally permitted the petitioner to
leave and to join the team on 11.7.1997 at Nizamuddin
Railway Station, New Delhi. Rather, all questions put by the
petitioner were focused on whether or not a police report was
lodged regarding desertion by the petitioner.
13. We need to note no further for the reason SI
Mahender Singh was the in-charge of the escort party and
obviously reference in the petitioner‟s defence statement that
he took verbal permission from the officer in-charge to leave
the escort party was to SI Mahender Singh. By not cross-
examining SI Mahender Singh in line with the defence
ultimately taken and not even suggesting to SI Mahender
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 7 of 14
Singh that he had verbally permitted petitioner to leave, the
inevitable conclusion has to be that the petitioner cooked up a
cock and bull story, which otherwise, as would be discussed
hereinafter, is a fancy of his imagination and lacks even in
rationale.
14. Ct.Tej Singh PW-2 deposed in sync with SI Mahender
Singh and relevant would it be to highlight that even this
witness was not cross-examined on the line of defence
ultimately taken.
15. Nk.Garib Dass PW-3, to whom the petitioner claimed
in his defence statement to have given his rifle before leaving
also deposed in sync with PW-1 and never stated that the
petitioner left his i.e. petitioner‟s rifle with him i.e. Nk.Garib
Dass. During cross-examination he was put a question: „On
6.7.1997 at about 10:00 AM Ct.S.K.Tripathi was discharged
from duty and was permitted leave from the Ujjain Railway
Station. What you have to say for that?‟ which suggestion the
witness denied and stated that Ct.S.K.Tripathi was present with
the team all throughout the trip. On being questioned by the
inquiry officer he categorically stated that as per his
knowledge the petitioner did not take prior permission from
anyone before absconding.
16. Relevant would it be to highlight that the ipsit dixit
question of Ct.S.K.Tripathi being discharged from duty has no
relevance. In any case, petitioner never suggested to PW-3
that the petitioner had entrusted his rifle to him after he was
permitted to leave.
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 8 of 14
17. R.M.D.Shukla PW-4, R.V.K.Tripathi PW-5, Ct.D.S.Gill
PW-10 and Ct.R.S.Haldkar PW-11 deposed in sync about not
having seen the petitioner after the luggage was loaded in the
train at Ujjain Railway Station and that PW-1 found petitioner‟s
rifle without the 50 rounds of bullets issued to the petitioner,
lying unattended on a berth during a search for the petitioner.
18. SI Toofan Singh PW-6 deposed that vide order dated
15.7.1997 Ex.PW-6/11, he was directed to take one more
officer with him and go to the home town of the petitioner who
had absconded from his duty with 50 bullets of 7.62mm Bolt
Action rifle. Accordingly, he along with L/Nk.S.V.Golhar went to
Rewari, a village in Haryana, where they reached on 16.7.1997
and met the petitioner at his house and upon inquiry about the
50 rounds, petitioner told them that the bullets were in Delhi.
Along with the petitioner, they went to Delhi where the
petitioner took off for 10 minutes and returned with a brief-
case containing 50 live rounds. On reaching the unit, petitioner
deposited the 50 bullets in the store room and he i.e. PW-6
submitted a report Ex.PW-6/12 to the Deputy Commandant.
Nk.S.V.Golhar PW-7 deposed in sync with SI Toofan Singh.
19. HC M.M.Tiwari PW-8 In-charge of arms and
ammunitions deposed that for the escort party sent for RBI
consignment on 6.7.1997 rifle bearing Butt No.52 was issued
to the petitioner. That on 13.7.1997 when the party returned,
all arms and ammunition was deposited with him except 50
bullets issued to the petitioner and that the rifle issued to the
petitioner was deposited by SI Mahender Singh, who informed
him that the petitioner had absconded from duty along with 50
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 9 of 14
bullets. A report regarding the same was lodged in the GD
register at entry No.423 PW-8/18 on 13.7.1997. That on
17.7.1997 the petitioner along with SI Toofan Singh came in
person and deposited the 50 bullets issued to him. Insp.Hari
Singh PW-12 deposed in sync with PW-8.
20. Insp.Vijay Kumar PW-9 deposed that he had put up
the note sheet deputing the petitioner for the RBI Chandigarh
consignment duty. That on 13.7.1997 SI Mahender Singh
informed him telephonically that the party had returned back
from Chandigarh duty and that the petitioner had absconded
on 6.7.1997 with 50 bullets. He accordingly submitted a report
Ex.PW-9/22 narrating the incident to the Dy.Commandant vide
letter dated 13.7.1997.
21. It needs to be re-emphasized once again that to the
6 other members of the escort party the petitioner never even
suggested that he was verbally permitted to leave the escort
party at Ujjain Railway Station and that he left the rifle by
telling L/Nk.Garib Dass who agreed to keep the same in safe
custody with him.
22. A perusal of the aforementioned ocular and
documentary evidence produced at the inquiry shows that
there is sufficient credible evidence in the form of
contemporary reports and general diary entries to prove that
the petitioner had absconded from duty without permission on
6.7.1997 leaving his rifle unattended on a train berth.
23. Even otherwise the story weaved by the petitioner
is incredulously fanciful and is full of self-contradictions.
Assuming the petitioner was permitted to leave at Ujjain
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 10 of 14
Railway Station with an obligation to join the escort party on
the return journey at Nizamuddin Railway Station and
assuming that L/Nk.Garib Dass agreed to keep petitioner‟s rifle
with him and not the 50 rounds of bullets and thus the
petitioner took the bullets with him, where is the explanation
for the bullets not to be with the petitioner, but with the
petitioner‟s friend at New Delhi when SI Toofan Singh and
L/Nk.S.V.Golhar reached petitioner‟s village, searching for him
and the ammunition? Further, as per the petitioner when he
could not meet the escort party members at Nizamuddin
Station on 11.7.1997 and his continuous search till 15.7.1997
evaded his meeting the escort party, he claims to have
returned to the village as he had no money to buy a train
ticket. If the petitioner could stay at Delhi from 11.7.1997 to
15.7.1997, it is obvious that he had money with him. The
fancy in the story is obvious. The petitioner was found in his
village on 16.7.1997 and he had to account for his absence till
he was found and unmindful of the logic of what he was
saying, petitioner kept on uttering whatever he thought he
could. It is just like a child caught with a cigarette in his
mouth, telling his mother that since his hands were full, at the
request of his friend who had to tie the shoe lace, he held the
cigarette in his lips.
24. The second argument refers to a violation of Rule
34(6) of the CISF Rules 1968 and thus we note the rule. It
reads as under:-
“34 Procedure for imposing major penalties:-
(1) ……..
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 11 of 14
(2) ……..
(3) ……..
(4) ……..
(5) ……..
(6) The Inquiring Authority referred to above shall,
in the course of the Inquiry, consider such
documentary evidence, and take such oral evidence
as may be relevant or material in regard to the
charges. The member of the Force shall be entitled
to cross-examine witnesses examined in support of
the charges, to give evidence in person and to
produce defence witnesses if, the said Inquiring
Authority declines to examine any witnesses on the
ground that his evidence is not relevant or material it
shall record its reasons for the same in writing.”
25. As noted herein above the petitioner was given
opportunity to cross-examine all 12 witnesses examined at the
inquiry, which opportunity he duly availed. It appears that
what the petitioner intends to say is that he was not examined
by the inquiry officer and was not given an opportunity to
produce defence evidence because in para 7 of the writ
petition, in the first part thereof it is pleaded that the petitioner
was not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and in the
latter part it is stated that the inquiry officer did not examine
the petitioner in person. The inchoate pleading in para 7 reads
as under:-
“7. Rule 34(6) of CISF Rules, 1969 clearly provides
that enquiring authority in the course of enquiry
consider such documentary evidence and take such
oral evidence as may be relevant or material in
regard to charges. The member of the force shall be
entitled to cross examine the witnesses, to give
evidence in person and to produce defence
witnesses. The enquiry officer did not give any
opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 12 of 14
provisions of Rule 34(6) of CISF Rules, 1969. It was
obligatory on the party of the enquiry officer to
examine the petitioner in person in support of his
defence in the departmental enquiry. Since this
opportunity of examination of the petitioner in the
departmental enquiry has been denied to the
petitioner, it will amount to be denial/denying the
reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the
departmental enquiry.”
26. As noted by us, on 15.11.1997 the petitioner was
examined by the inquiry officer and he categorically said that
he does not wish to produce any witness in defence. The
petitioner made a statement which was recorded on
15.11.1997 and as noted herein above attempted to justify his
action.
27. There is thus no violation of any procedural rule.
28. The plea that the Commandant gave no
independent reasons and mechanically adopted the reasoning
of the Inquiry Officer is neither here nor there for the reason
the 6 page order passed by the Commandant has, in para 8
thereof summarized the evidence and needless to state law
does not require the disciplinary authority to give elaborate
reasons while agreeing with the report of the inquiry officer.
29. Absconding from duty post while on duty is a
serious offence and especially when one is a member of an
escort party to ensure safety of currency notes being
transported in a train from one city to another. Leaving behind
a rifle unattended compounds the offence. The nail in the
coffin would be leaving 50 rounds of ammunition with a friend.
Thus, finding the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to be the
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 13 of 14
only appropriate penalty which could be levied in the facts of
the instant case, we dismiss the writ petition but refrain from
imposing costs since the petitioner is without a job.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(SUNIL GAUR)
JUDGE
September 26, 2011
dk
WP(C) No.638/1999 Page 14 of 14