MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. UOI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DURING arguments on July 19, 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner had conceded that a most inartistically drafted writ petition has been filed, without any application of mind. Thus, learned counsel for the petitioner did not urge most of the points projected in the writ petition. The absurdity in the pleadings and the non-application of mind by the counsel who filed the writ petition is evident from the fact that the counsel concerned, who appears to be having good contacts with jawans in Central Para Military Forces had been filing writ petitions which were a verbatim copy of each other, and in the instant case one instance of absurdity of the highest kind could be illustrated with respect to the fact that the writ petitioner is Ex.HC/DRV Mahipal Singh and not L/Nk.R.L.Meena. In the writ petition challenge is made to the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority on September 10, 1998, which pertains to L/Nk.R.L.Meena and not the petitioner.

(2.) HOWEVER, as agreed to between learned counsel for the parties, arguments were advanced with reference to the original record of inquiry, and in respect whereof only two contentions were urged at the hearing of the writ petition. The first contention was that the Inquiry Officer Asstt.Comdt. Kuldeep Kumar had a bias resulting in his overlooking material evidence and material contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses. Learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the bias was on account of the fact that as per Article of Charge-V, it was alleged against the petitioner that at 08:30 hours on March 30, 1998 he had disobeyed the lawful command of Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar, the Inquiry Officer, by not appearing in the orderly room as directed by Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar. It was thus urged that Asstt.Comdt.Kuldeep Kumar, being a complainant with respect to Article-V of the charge, was biased, in that, he had an interest to sustain the charge; come what may. It was urged that admittedly, petitioner had requested for change of Inquiry Officer, which request was rejected without a justifiable cause. The second contention urged was that as a consequence of the bias the Inquiry Officer ignored the testimony of Ct.(Cook) Inderpal Singh and during inquiry elicited a response from Inderpal Singh, which response was at total variance with the testimony of Inderpal Singh. Attacking the report of the Inquiry Officer it was urged that except for noting briefly the testimony of Inderpal Singh, no attempt was made to analyze the same. Taking the argument further, it was urged that the inchoate and disjunctive testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh was unnecessarily given due prominence, without analyzing the inherent contradictions, disjunctiveness and inchoateness in the testimony of Insp.S.R.Singh.

(3.) THE request was rejected by the Commandant and the same was communicated to the petitioner as per letter dated June 09, 1998 which reads as under:-