LAWS(DLH)-2010-4-101

JAI PRAKASH NARAIN Vs. DELHI HIGH COURT

Decided On April 09, 2010
JAI PRAKASH NARAIN Appellant
V/S
DELHI HIGH COURT Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner was selected in Delhi Judicial Service on 2nd November, 1992 and was assigned judicial work in May, 1993. Since then, petitioner is performing his duties as a Judicial Officer. On 13th December, 2006, petitioner was served with a Memorandum of Charges levelling allegations of misconduct against him. The same is reproduced as under:-

(2.) Initially, Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen was appointed as an Inquiring Authority to inquire into the charges levelled against the petitioner. On 19th May, 2008 the petitioner received a letter dated 17.05.2008 from respondent no.1 wherein he was informed that Mr. Justice Vikramajit Sen had recused himself from the inquiry. On 4th July, 2008, petitioner was informed that another Judge of this Court i.e. respondent no.3, has been appointed as an Inquiring Authority. It is stated that since then inquiry proceedings are being conducted against him by the respondent no.3. Petitioner has alleged bias and prejudice on the part of the Inquiring Authority i.e. respondent no.3. Petitioner has alleged that he also made a representation dated 27th February, 2009 before the Disciplinary Authority/respondent no.2 for change of Inquiring Authority and in the meanwhile for stay of inquiry proceedings. Petitioner also filed a review/supplementary petition dated 2nd March, 2009 before respondent no.2. Vide letter dated 26th March, 2009, petitioner was informed that his representation and review/supplementary petition have been rejected by respondent no.2. Thereafter petitioner made recusal application to Inquiring Authority i.e. respondent no.3 requesting him to recuse himself from the inquiry. Vide orders dated 01.05.2009 the same has also been rejected by respondent no.3/Inquiring Authority.

(3.) The case of the petitioner is that after the recusal of the previous Inquiring Authority, inquiry is being conducted in a hasty manner without following the principles of natural justice and Statutory Rules. Some of the purported instances of bias/prejudice alleged by the petitioner against respondent no. 3/Inquiring Authority are stated herein. It is alleged that Ms. Anjali Bhardwaj (MW-1) is the material witness of establishment. Her examination-in-chief has been accepted in the form of an affidavit by the earlier Inquiring Authority. It is alleged that on 16th September, 2008, while cross-examining MW-1, petitioner wanted to put two complaints made in the name of S.K. Tyagi and S.K. Agnihotri to the aforesaid witness MW-1. But Inquiring Authority/respondent no. 3 disallowed the same by saying that these complaints be put to the witnesses when they would be called whereas the stand of petitioner is that MW1 is the author of aforesaid complaints and S.K. Tyagi and S.K. Agnihotri are non-existing persons. It is alleged that petitioner has been denied the basic right of cross-examination. It is further alleged that on 16.09.2008, petitioner also wanted to impeach the credit of the said witness i.e MW 1 by contradicting her with her previous complaints but respondent no.3 disallowed the same by saying that the same can be read at the time of arguments. It is alleged that request of petitioner made in this regard and same being not allowed is not recorded in the inquiring record. On 17.09.2008 during cross-examination of MW-1, the petitioner moved an application for supply of copy of statement of MW-1 dated 19.12.2002 and 21.12.2002 as the petitioner wanted to confront the said witness with the previous statement. However, the said application was disallowed. It is further alleged that deliberate effort is being made by the respondent No.3 to prevent the petitioner from conducting an effective cross-examination of MW-1. It is alleged that on 18.09.2008, the Inquiring Authority/ respondent No.3 passed oral orders to summon witnesses, namely, Mr. Ramesh Kumar and Mr. Chander Pal of his own accord. Further, Mr. Gian and Mrs. Bhaggo were also summoned by the Inquiring Authority without there being any request from the side of Establishment. It is alleged that the respondent No.3 also summoned some documents during the inquiry proceedings despite the fact that same were not relied upon by the establishment/respondent no.1. It is alleged that on 3.12.2008 at the time of the recording of evidence of Sh. Ram Prakash MW-8, initially questions were put to him by Presenting Officer of respondent no.1 but subsequently Inquiring Authority started putting questions to him. Examination of witness MW-8 continued on 04.12.2008 wherein the witness was confused by the constant questioning of Inquiring Authority and thus refused to answer any further questions. The Inquiring Authority ordered closure of the evidence and thereafter the witness started leaving the room. Due to constant questioning by the Inquiring Authority the witness sought adjournment and the matter was adjourned to 13.01.2009. It is stated that the said sequence of events is not mentioned in the record as to why the witness walked out of the room and how he was brought back. The petitioner moved an application for correction of the records. Reply was also filed by respondent no.1 to the said application which is evasive and establishes the averments made by petitioner. The petitioner is not being supplied with the copy of the application filed by MW-8 and is not even allowed to inspect the inquiry records despite the fact that the application demanding the copy of said application and inspection are on an inquiry file. The petitioner is, therefore, being prevented from defending himself effectively. It is alleged that the complainants Mr.Jai Dev and Smt. Rajvanti have already withdrawn their complaints during the fact finding enquiry and Inquiring Authority is presuming them to be innocent. Further case of petitioner is that on 19.02.2009 inquiry proceedings were held in the court room. Some police officials and staff members were sitting there to which the petitioner objected but the Inquiring Authority continued proceedings in the court room. The police officials were asked to leave the room only after a strong protest was made by the petitioner. It is alleged that on the said date, during the examination of witness MW-9, her grand-daughter who was also present started speaking from behind. The petitioner raised an objection to her presence which was over-ruled by the Inquiring Authority. Rather the Inquiring Authority construed it as obstructing the proceedings and it was also recorded in the proceedings that the petitioner was obstructing the proceedings. As the Inquiring Authority was not prepared to hear his objection, petitioner requested for an adjournment which was not allowed. The petitioner left the inquiry after taking leave of the Inquiring Authority. However, the request of the petitioner to defer the cross-examination was not acceded to and the lawyer of the petitioner was insisted to complete the cross-examination in the absence of the petitioner. It is alleged that respondent No.3 is inclined to build a prejudicial record against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application dated 20.02.2009 before the Inquiring Authority for recalling the witnesses MW-9 to 11, whose evidence had been recorded in the absence of the petitioner in the manner stated above and also for inspection of the inquiry file and supply of the copy of application and affidavit filed by MW-8. Both the applications were rejected vide order dated 27.02.2009. Considering the above, petitioner filed a representation dated 27.02.2009 and a subsequent representation dated 02.03.2009 before the respondent no.2, seeking the change of Inquiring Authority. On 26.03.2009, the petitioner came to know that same have been rejected by the Disciplinary Authority. Petitioner also moved a recusal application dated 19.03.2009 before the Inquiring Authority requesting him to recuse himself from the inquiry. Vide order dated 01.05.2009 the said application has also been rejected. Aggrieved with the same, the present petition is filed.