{"id":247353,"date":"2011-09-26T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-25T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011"},"modified":"2018-10-05T20:35:03","modified_gmt":"2018-10-05T15:05:03","slug":"rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Delhi High Court<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_author\">Author: Pradeep Nandrajog<\/div>\n<pre id=\"pre_1\">*       IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI\n\n%                     Judgment Reserved on: 20th September, 2011\n                    Judgment Pronounced on: 26th September, 2011\n\n+                         W.P.(C) 638\/1999\n\n        RAJBIR SINGH                              ....Petitioner\n                  Through:     Mr.Kul Bharat, Advocate for\n                               Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate\n\n                               versus\n\n        UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.            ...Respondents\n                  Through: Mr.Abdus Salam, Asst.Cmdt., CISF\n\n\n        CORAM:\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG\n        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL GAUR\n\n     1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed\n        to see the judgment?\n\n     2. To be referred to Reporter or not?\n\n     3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?\n\nPRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.\n<\/pre>\n<p id=\"p_1\">1.           Upon a complaint made by SI Mahender Singh<br \/>\nalleging that the petitioner, a constable with Central Industrial<br \/>\nSecurity Force, deserted his duty post on 6.7.1997, the<br \/>\nCommandant of the unit BNP Dewas (Madhya Pradesh) issued<br \/>\na charge sheet dated 23.08.1997 against the petitioner listing<br \/>\n2 Articles of Charge which read as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                             &#8220;CHARGE NO.01<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                     Page 1 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n         Serious negligence of duty, violation of lawful<br \/>\n        orders    and    gross   indiscipline    i.e. Force<br \/>\n        No.902334728 Constable (Under suspension) Rajbir<br \/>\n        Singh, C.I.S.F. Unit Bank Note Press, Devas (M.P.)<br \/>\n        who was deputed at Chandigarh Dispatch Security<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_1\">        duty along with Rifle 7.62 MM Butt No.52 and 50<\/span><br \/>\n        Rounds under the subordination of Party In charge<br \/>\n        Dy.Inspector\/Work Mahender Singh on dated<br \/>\n        05.7.97, remained absent unauthorizedly without<br \/>\n        the prior permission\/sanction of competent<br \/>\n        authority along with 50 Rounds from 06.7.97 and<br \/>\n        remained absconder till 17.7.97, which is a serious<br \/>\n        offence under Section 18 of the C.I.S.F. Act.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_1\"><p>                          CHARGE NO.2<\/p>\n<p>        Serious carelessness and indiscipline i.e. Force<br \/>\n        No.902334728 Constable (Under Suspension) Rajbir<br \/>\n        Singh, C.I.S.F. Unit, Bank Note Press, Devas (M.P.)<br \/>\n        who was deputed at Chandigarh Dispatch Security<br \/>\n        duty along with Rifle No.R\/BA\/52\/A-01291, 7.62 and<br \/>\n        50 rounds under the subordination of Party In<br \/>\n        charge Dy.Inspector\/Works Mahender Singh on<br \/>\n        dated 05.7.97 but on 06.7.97 during the duties at<br \/>\n        Dispatch Security left his rifle carelessly and<br \/>\n        remained absconded with 50 rounds.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_1\">2.           It needs to be highlighted that the indictment is<br \/>\nfairly serious inasmuch as the statement of imputation along<br \/>\nwith the charge-sheet would        evidence that government<br \/>\ncurrency i.e. notes printed at the Government press at Devas<br \/>\nhad to be sent by train to Chandigarh to be delivered at the<br \/>\nReserve Bank of India. An escort party was constituted under<br \/>\nthe command of SI Mahender Singh.        The escort party was<br \/>\nissued arms and ammunition. Petitioner was a member of the<br \/>\nescort party. When the currency chests were loaded into the<br \/>\nbogie of the train at Ujjain Railway Station and as the escort<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_2\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                 Page 2 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n party members were putting their luggage inside the next<br \/>\nbogie i.e. the escort bogie, the petitioner disappeared leaving<br \/>\nhis rifle behind on a berth in the train, without entrusting<br \/>\ncustody thereof to any colleague and took along with him the<br \/>\n50 rounds of ammunition issued to him. A party of 2 officers<br \/>\nwent to his village Rewari (Haryana) and found him at his<br \/>\nhouse on 16.7.1997.          The ammunition was recovered at the<br \/>\ninstance of the petitioner as he told the said officers that he<br \/>\nhad left the ammunition with a friend at Delhi.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_2\">3.           Insp.A.K.Sharma was appointed as the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer and at the inquiry 12 witnesses were examined by the<br \/>\ndepartment and          as recorded   in the proceedings dated<br \/>\n15.9.1997 when petitioner was examined by the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer,   in   spite   of   opportunity   granted,   the   petitioner<br \/>\nexamined no witnesses in defence stating that he did not<br \/>\ndesire to produce a witness or a document.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_3\">4.           After recording prosecution evidence, the petitioner<br \/>\nwas examined by the inquiry officer on 15.11.1997 on which<br \/>\ndate, the petitioner, as noted herein above categorically stated<br \/>\nthat he desires to examine none as his witness or file any<br \/>\ndocument and thereafter the petitioner made a statement in<br \/>\ndefence in which he admitted that a party consisting of 7 CISF<br \/>\nOfficials, including the petitioner, under the charge of SI<br \/>\nMahender Singh, was detailed to carry currency from Devas,<br \/>\nMadhya Pradesh to RBI Chandigarh. He stated that on<br \/>\n6.7.1997, after loading the currency notes in the train the<br \/>\nparty left for Chandigarh. On the way, at Ujjain railway station,<br \/>\nthe officer-in-charge discharged him of his duty and verbally<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_3\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                      Page 3 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n permitted him to leave and join the party at Nizamuddin<br \/>\nRailway Station in Delhi on 11.7.1997 from where they were to<br \/>\ndepart for Devas on 12.7.1997. That on 11.7.1997 at about<br \/>\n19:30 hours he reached Nizamuddin Railway Station and<br \/>\nwaited for the officials but could not find them. Again on<br \/>\n12.7.1997 he searched for the party but could not find them.<br \/>\nThat on 13.7.1997 he made a telephone call from Nizammudin<br \/>\nRailway Station to C.R.O control room to find out if the party<br \/>\nhad returned to the unit but SI Madan Singh who answered the<br \/>\nphone call informed him that the party had not returned. That<br \/>\nhe kept waiting for the party officials to reach Delhi but finally<br \/>\non 15.7.1997 he gave up the search and returned home since<br \/>\ndue to paucity of funds\/money he could not buy a train ticket<br \/>\nto go back to the unit. That on 16.7.1997 he reached home<br \/>\nand within a few hours, SI Toofan Singh and L\/Nk. S.V.Golhar<br \/>\narrived at his house, and he left for Delhi with them, where he<br \/>\nhad kept his briefcase containing 50 live rounds of bullets with<br \/>\na friend. That he handed over the rounds to SI Toofan Singh<br \/>\nwho deposited the same in the kote (store) upon reaching the<br \/>\nunit lines on 17.7.1997 at 12:00 hours.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_4\">5.            On    being   questioned   by   the   Inquiry    Officer<br \/>\npetitioner stated that he had handed over his rifle bearing Butt<br \/>\nNo.52 to Nk.Garib Dass and that the Officer-in-charge was<br \/>\naware of his handing over the rifle and had verbally discharged<br \/>\nhim from duty. That he had to take away the 50 rounds of Bolt<br \/>\nAction bullets because Nk.Garib Dass requested him to do so<br \/>\ntelling him that his i.e. Nk.Garib Dass\u201fs luggage had become<br \/>\nheavy.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_4\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                     Page 4 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_5\"> 6.           It is apparent that the petitioner admitted having<br \/>\nparted company with the escort party at railway station Ujjain<br \/>\nbut raised a defence that he was verbally discharged from the<br \/>\nescort party by the Officer-in-charge with a direction that he<br \/>\nshould meet the escort party at Nizamuddin Railway Station on<br \/>\n11.7.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_6\">7.           It is apparent that what the petitioner said was that<br \/>\nhe was permitted to rejoin the escort party at Nizamuddin<br \/>\nRailway Station when the escort party would be returning from<br \/>\nChandigarh after safely delivering the currency chests at RBI<br \/>\nChandigarh on the way back to Devas.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_7\">8.           In view of the testimony of the 12 witnesses of the<br \/>\nprosecution, 6 of whom were the members of the escort party,<br \/>\n2 were SI Toofan Singh and L\/Nk.S.V.Golhar and the remaining<br \/>\nwitnesses were the ones who deposed that the petitioner was<br \/>\ndeputed as a member of the escort party and deposed<br \/>\nregarding deposit of arms and ammunitions etc., the Inquiry<br \/>\nOfficer vide his report dated 26.11.1997 held both charges<br \/>\nproved. Supplying a copy of report of the inquiry officer to the<br \/>\npetitioner for his response which was made on 15.12.1997 and<br \/>\nreceived on 16.12.1997, but agreeing with the findings<br \/>\nreturned by the Inquiry Officer the Disciplinary Authority levied<br \/>\npenalty of removal from service upon the petitioner as per<br \/>\norder dated 17.12.1997 against which appeal filed was<br \/>\nrejected on 4.2.1999.     Instant petition challenges the said 2<br \/>\norders.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_8\">9.           During arguments learned counsel for the petitioner<br \/>\nurged 3 submissions. Firstly, that the finding of the Inquiry<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_5\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                   Page 5 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n Officer was devoid of reasons supporting the conclusion which<br \/>\nputs a shadow\/taint on its veracity and that there wasn\u201ft<br \/>\nsufficient evidence to prove the charge. Secondly, that the<br \/>\npetitioner was denied opportunity to defend himself by not<br \/>\nbeing examined as required under Rule 34(6) of CISF Rules<br \/>\n1968. Lastly, that the Disciplinary Authority did not comply<br \/>\nwith provision of Rule 34(9) while passing the final order and<br \/>\nonly accepted the inquiry report blindly.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_9\">10.          In regard to the first contention we think it best to<br \/>\nvisit the evidence produced at the departmental inquiry and<br \/>\nreproduce a gist of the same for the sake of clarity. At the<br \/>\noutset, we note that in light of the admissions made by the<br \/>\npetitioner in his defence statement, briefly noted in para 4<br \/>\nabove, what needs to be seen is whether or not the petitioner<br \/>\nwas permitted to part company with the escort party at Ujjain<br \/>\nRailway Station as claimed by the petitioner for the reason he<br \/>\ndid not dispute that he was a member of an escort party<br \/>\nentrusted with the duty of securing the security of currency<br \/>\nchests containing currency notes to be deposited at RBI<br \/>\nChandigarh and that en-route he parted company and never<br \/>\nwent to Chandigarh.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_10\">11.          At the inquiry SI Mahender Singh PW-1 deposed that<br \/>\non 6.7.1997 after the luggage was loaded in the train the<br \/>\nofficers of the escort party boarded the train in a rush and only<br \/>\nafter the train started moving he went to check whether all<br \/>\nmembers of the party were present and found the petitioner<br \/>\nmissing. He enquired from other officers but no one whether<br \/>\nthe petitioner had boarded the train or not. He searched and<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_6\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                   Page 6 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n found petitioner\u201fs briefcase missing, however rifle bearing Butt<br \/>\nNo.52 issued to the petitioner was found lying unattended<br \/>\nalong with the luggage of other officers. He enquired from the<br \/>\nofficers whether the petitioner had left the rifle in someone\u201fs<br \/>\ncustody, but none affirmed the same. En-route to Chandigarh<br \/>\nhe attempted to contact the Unit and report about the incident<br \/>\nbut could make no contact. Upon his return he immediately<br \/>\ndeposited petitioner\u201fs rifle at the kote and made a General<br \/>\nDiary Entry at S.No.428 dated 13.7.1997 at 19:25 hours Ex.PW-<br \/>\n1\/10 and recorded therein that on 6.7.1997 at about 18:10<br \/>\nhours, leaving his rifle unattended on a berth, the petitioner<br \/>\nabsconded from his duty post without permission or intimation<br \/>\nto any other officer. He i.e. PW-1 also reported about the<br \/>\nincident to the Commandant of the unit.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_11\">12.          It be highlighted that the witness was cross-<br \/>\nexamined by the petitioner and the petitioner did not suggest<br \/>\nto the witness that he had verbally permitted the petitioner to<br \/>\nleave and to join the team on 11.7.1997 at Nizamuddin<br \/>\nRailway Station, New Delhi. Rather, all questions put by the<br \/>\npetitioner were focused on whether or not a police report was<br \/>\nlodged regarding desertion by the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_12\">13.          We need to note no further for the reason SI<br \/>\nMahender Singh was the in-charge of the escort party and<br \/>\nobviously reference in the petitioner\u201fs defence statement that<br \/>\nhe took verbal permission from the officer in-charge to leave<br \/>\nthe escort party was to SI Mahender Singh.       By not cross-<br \/>\nexamining SI Mahender Singh in line with the defence<br \/>\nultimately taken and not even suggesting to SI Mahender<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_7\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                 Page 7 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n Singh that he had verbally permitted petitioner to leave, the<br \/>\ninevitable conclusion has to be that the petitioner cooked up a<br \/>\ncock and bull story, which otherwise, as would be discussed<br \/>\nhereinafter, is a fancy of his imagination and lacks even in<br \/>\nrationale.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_13\">14.          Ct.Tej Singh PW-2 deposed in sync with SI Mahender<br \/>\nSingh and relevant would it be to highlight that even this<br \/>\nwitness was not cross-examined on the line of defence<br \/>\nultimately taken.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_14\">15.          Nk.Garib Dass PW-3, to whom the petitioner claimed<br \/>\nin his defence statement to have given his rifle before leaving<br \/>\nalso deposed in sync with PW-1 and never stated that the<br \/>\npetitioner left his i.e. petitioner\u201fs rifle with him i.e. Nk.Garib<br \/>\nDass. During cross-examination he was put a question: \u201eOn<br \/>\n6.7.1997 at about 10:00 AM Ct.S.K.Tripathi was discharged<br \/>\nfrom duty and was permitted leave from the Ujjain Railway<br \/>\nStation. What you have to say for that?\u201f which suggestion the<br \/>\nwitness denied and stated that Ct.S.K.Tripathi was present with<br \/>\nthe team all throughout the trip. On being questioned by the<br \/>\ninquiry    officer   he   categorically   stated   that    as    per     his<br \/>\nknowledge the petitioner did not take prior permission from<br \/>\nanyone before absconding.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_15\">16.          Relevant would it be to highlight that the ipsit dixit<br \/>\nquestion of Ct.S.K.Tripathi being discharged from duty has no<br \/>\nrelevance.     In any case, petitioner never suggested to PW-3<br \/>\nthat the petitioner had entrusted his rifle to him after he was<br \/>\npermitted to leave.\n<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_8\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                         Page 8 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n<p id=\"p_16\"> 17.          R.M.D.Shukla PW-4, R.V.K.Tripathi PW-5, Ct.D.S.Gill<br \/>\nPW-10 and Ct.R.S.Haldkar PW-11 deposed in sync about not<br \/>\nhaving seen the petitioner after the luggage was loaded in the<br \/>\ntrain at Ujjain Railway Station and that PW-1 found petitioner\u201fs<br \/>\nrifle without the 50 rounds of bullets issued to the petitioner,<br \/>\nlying unattended on a berth during a search for the petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_17\">18.          SI Toofan Singh PW-6 deposed that vide order dated<br \/>\n15.7.1997 Ex.PW-6\/11, he was directed to take one more<br \/>\nofficer with him and go to the home town of the petitioner who<br \/>\nhad absconded from his duty with 50 bullets of 7.62mm Bolt<br \/>\nAction rifle. Accordingly, he along with L\/Nk.S.V.Golhar went to<br \/>\nRewari, a village in Haryana, where they reached on 16.7.1997<br \/>\nand met the petitioner at his house and upon inquiry about the<br \/>\n50 rounds, petitioner told them that the bullets were in Delhi.<br \/>\nAlong with the petitioner, they went to Delhi where the<br \/>\npetitioner took off for 10 minutes and returned with a brief-<br \/>\ncase containing 50 live rounds. On reaching the unit, petitioner<br \/>\ndeposited the 50 bullets in the store room and he i.e. PW-6<br \/>\nsubmitted a report Ex.PW-6\/12 to the Deputy Commandant.<br \/>\nNk.S.V.Golhar PW-7 deposed in sync with SI Toofan Singh.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_18\">19.          HC     M.M.Tiwari   PW-8   In-charge   of   arms       and<br \/>\nammunitions deposed that for the escort party sent for RBI<br \/>\nconsignment on 6.7.1997 rifle bearing Butt No.52 was issued<br \/>\nto the petitioner. That on 13.7.1997 when the party returned,<br \/>\nall arms and ammunition was deposited with him except 50<br \/>\nbullets issued to the petitioner and that the rifle issued to the<br \/>\npetitioner was deposited by SI Mahender Singh, who informed<br \/>\nhim that the petitioner had absconded from duty along with 50<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_9\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                    Page 9 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n bullets. A report regarding the same was lodged in the GD<br \/>\nregister at entry No.423 PW-8\/18 on 13.7.1997. That on<br \/>\n17.7.1997 the petitioner along with SI Toofan Singh came in<br \/>\nperson and deposited the 50 bullets issued to him. Insp.Hari<br \/>\nSingh PW-12 deposed in sync with PW-8.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_19\">20.           Insp.Vijay Kumar PW-9 deposed that he had put up<br \/>\nthe note sheet deputing the petitioner for the RBI Chandigarh<br \/>\nconsignment duty. That on 13.7.1997 SI Mahender Singh<br \/>\ninformed him telephonically that the party had returned back<br \/>\nfrom Chandigarh duty and that the petitioner had absconded<br \/>\non 6.7.1997 with 50 bullets. He accordingly submitted a report<br \/>\nEx.PW-9\/22 narrating the incident to the Dy.Commandant vide<br \/>\nletter dated 13.7.1997.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_20\">21.           It needs to be re-emphasized once again that to the<br \/>\n6 other members of the escort party the petitioner never even<br \/>\nsuggested that he was verbally permitted to leave the escort<br \/>\nparty at Ujjain Railway Station and that he left the rifle by<br \/>\ntelling L\/Nk.Garib Dass who agreed to keep the same in safe<br \/>\ncustody with him.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_21\">22.           A     perusal   of   the   aforementioned    ocular         and<br \/>\ndocumentary evidence produced at the inquiry shows that<br \/>\nthere    is   sufficient      credible   evidence   in   the    form       of<br \/>\ncontemporary reports and general diary entries to prove that<br \/>\nthe petitioner had absconded from duty without permission on<br \/>\n6.7.1997 leaving his rifle unattended on a train berth.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_22\">23.           Even otherwise the story weaved by the petitioner<br \/>\nis incredulously fanciful and is full of self-contradictions.<br \/>\nAssuming the petitioner was permitted to leave at Ujjain<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_10\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                         Page 10 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n Railway Station with an obligation to join the escort party on<br \/>\nthe   return    journey   at   Nizamuddin   Railway   Station         and<br \/>\nassuming that L\/Nk.Garib Dass agreed to keep petitioner\u201fs rifle<br \/>\nwith him and not the 50 rounds of bullets and thus the<br \/>\npetitioner took the bullets with him, where is the explanation<br \/>\nfor the bullets not to be with the petitioner, but with the<br \/>\npetitioner\u201fs friend at New Delhi when SI Toofan Singh and<br \/>\nL\/Nk.S.V.Golhar reached petitioner\u201fs village, searching for him<br \/>\nand the ammunition? Further, as per the petitioner when he<br \/>\ncould not meet the escort party members at Nizamuddin<br \/>\nStation on 11.7.1997 and his continuous search till 15.7.1997<br \/>\nevaded his meeting the escort party, he claims to have<br \/>\nreturned to the village as he had no money to buy a train<br \/>\nticket. If the petitioner could stay at Delhi from 11.7.1997 to<br \/>\n15.7.1997, it is obvious that he had money with him.                  The<br \/>\nfancy in the story is obvious. The petitioner was found in his<br \/>\nvillage on 16.7.1997 and he had to account for his absence till<br \/>\nhe was found and unmindful of the logic of what he was<br \/>\nsaying, petitioner kept on uttering whatever he thought he<br \/>\ncould.    It is just like a child caught with a cigarette in his<br \/>\nmouth, telling his mother that since his hands were full, at the<br \/>\nrequest of his friend who had to tie the shoe lace, he held the<br \/>\ncigarette in his lips.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_23\">24.          The second argument refers to a violation of Rule<br \/>\n34(6) of the CISF Rules 1968 and thus we note the rule.                It<br \/>\nreads as under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_2\"><p>       &#8220;34 Procedure for imposing major penalties:-<br \/>\n      (1) &#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_11\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                     Page 11 of 14<\/span><\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_3\"><p>       (2) &#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_4\"><p>      (3) &#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_5\"><p>      (4) &#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_6\"><p>      (5) &#8230;&#8230;..\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_7\"><p>       (6) The Inquiring Authority referred to above shall,<br \/>\n      in the course of the Inquiry, consider such<br \/>\n      documentary evidence, and take such oral evidence<br \/>\n      as may be relevant or material in regard to the<br \/>\n      charges. The member of the Force shall be entitled<br \/>\n      to cross-examine witnesses examined in support of<br \/>\n      the charges, to give evidence in person and to<br \/>\n      produce defence witnesses if, the said Inquiring<br \/>\n      Authority declines to examine any witnesses on the<br \/>\n      ground that his evidence is not relevant or material it<br \/>\n      shall record its reasons for the same in writing.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_24\">25.          As noted herein above the petitioner was given<br \/>\nopportunity to cross-examine all 12 witnesses examined at the<br \/>\ninquiry, which opportunity he duly availed.        It appears that<br \/>\nwhat the petitioner intends to say is that he was not examined<br \/>\nby the inquiry officer and was not given an opportunity to<br \/>\nproduce defence evidence because in para 7 of the writ<br \/>\npetition, in the first part thereof it is pleaded that the petitioner<br \/>\nwas not permitted to cross-examine the witnesses and in the<br \/>\nlatter part it is stated that the inquiry officer did not examine<br \/>\nthe petitioner in person. The inchoate pleading in para 7 reads<br \/>\nas under:-\n<\/p>\n<blockquote id=\"blockquote_8\"><p>      &#8220;7. Rule 34(6) of CISF Rules, 1969 clearly provides<br \/>\n      that enquiring authority in the course of enquiry<br \/>\n      consider such documentary evidence and take such<br \/>\n      oral evidence as may be relevant or material in<br \/>\n      regard to charges. The member of the force shall be<br \/>\n      entitled to cross examine the witnesses, to give<br \/>\n      evidence in person and to produce defence<br \/>\n      witnesses. The enquiry officer did not give any<br \/>\n      opportunity to the petitioner to comply with the<br \/>\n<span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_12\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                     Page 12 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n       provisions of Rule 34(6) of CISF Rules, 1969. It was<br \/>\n      obligatory on the party of the enquiry officer to<br \/>\n      examine the petitioner in person in support of his<br \/>\n      defence in the departmental enquiry. Since this<br \/>\n      opportunity of examination of the petitioner in the<br \/>\n      departmental enquiry has been denied to the<br \/>\n      petitioner, it will amount to be denial\/denying the<br \/>\n      reasonable opportunity to defend himself in the<br \/>\n      departmental enquiry.&#8221;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p id=\"p_25\">26.          As noted by us, on 15.11.1997 the petitioner was<br \/>\nexamined by the inquiry officer and he categorically said that<br \/>\nhe does not wish to produce any witness in defence.                    The<br \/>\npetitioner    made    a    statement     which   was   recorded        on<br \/>\n15.11.1997 and as noted herein above attempted to justify his<br \/>\naction.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_26\">27.          There is thus no violation of any procedural rule.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_27\">28.          The    plea    that   the    Commandant       gave        no<br \/>\nindependent reasons and mechanically adopted the reasoning<br \/>\nof the Inquiry Officer is neither here nor there for the reason<br \/>\nthe 6 page order passed by the Commandant has, in para 8<br \/>\nthereof summarized the evidence and needless to state law<br \/>\ndoes not require the disciplinary authority to give elaborate<br \/>\nreasons while agreeing with the report of the inquiry officer.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_28\">29.          Absconding from duty post while on duty is a<br \/>\nserious offence and especially when one is a member of an<br \/>\nescort party to ensure safety of currency notes being<br \/>\ntransported in a train from one city to another. Leaving behind<br \/>\na rifle unattended compounds the offence. The nail in the<br \/>\ncoffin would be leaving 50 rounds of ammunition with a friend.<br \/>\nThus, finding the penalty imposed upon the petitioner to be the<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_13\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                      Page 13 of 14<\/span><br \/>\n only appropriate penalty which could be levied in the facts of<br \/>\nthe instant case, we dismiss the writ petition but refrain from<br \/>\nimposing costs since the petitioner is without a job.\n<\/p>\n<p id=\"p_29\">                                  (PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)<br \/>\n                                         JUDGE<\/p>\n<p>                                     (SUNIL GAUR)<br \/>\n                                          JUDGE<br \/>\nSeptember 26, 2011<br \/>\ndk<\/p>\n<p><span class=\"hidden_text\" id=\"span_14\">WP(C) No.638\/1999                                   Page 14 of 14<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Delhi High Court Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 Author: Pradeep Nandrajog * 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 &#8230;.Petitioner Through: Mr.Kul Bharat, Advocate for Mr.Shyam Babu, Advocate [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[14,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-247353","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-delhi-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-05T15:05:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T15:05:03+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3378,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Delhi High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-05T15:05:03+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-05T15:05:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T15:05:03+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011"},"wordCount":3378,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Delhi High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011","name":"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-25T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-05T15:05:03+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajbir-singh-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-26-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajbir Singh vs Union Of India &amp; Ors. on 26 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247353","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247353"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247353\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247353"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247353"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247353"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}