BANI SINGH Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff impugning the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 29.9.2014 by which the first appeal of the respondents herein was accepted and the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 6.8.2013 was set aside. Trial court by the Judgment dated 6.8.2013 decreed the suit filed by the appellant and set aside the orders passed by the disciplinary authority and the appellate authority ordering the punishment of removal of the appellant from services with the Central Industrial Security Force on account of having unauthorisedly fired as many as 49 rounds from his service rifle.

(2.) The admitted facts which appear on record are that the appellant/plaintiff failed to appear after initially appearing in the enquiry proceedings. The appellant/plaintiff claims that he did not appear in the enquiry proceedings on account of the fact that he was mentally ill. The appellate court as well as the trial court in the impugned judgments have come to a finding that there is no record which was filed by the appellant/plaintiff of his suffering such mental medical condition during the enquiry proceedings so that the appellant/plaintiff could not appear in the enquiry proceedings. Trial court in paras 18 and 19 of its judgment has dealt with this aspect exhaustively. This finding of fact cannot be challenged in this second appeal, and in any case such finding is absolutely correct and justified because no evidence was led by the appellant/plaintiff of his being mentally incapacitated to appear in the enquiry proceedings.

(3.) Two issues arise for consideration and as have been strenuously urged on behalf of the appellant by his counsel. Firstly, it is argued that the admitted fact which has come on record is that the appellant was not supplied with the documents attached to the memorandum of charges and hence the enquiry proceedings are violative of the principles of natural justice. To buttress this aspect, counsel for the appellant has sought to argue the existence of the conflicting stands of the respondents that whereas in the trial court it was contended that documents were supplied but before the first appellate court it was conceded that the documents with the memorandum of charges were not supplied. The second ground which is urged is that the appellant was not given the enquiry report and hence the appellant is prejudiced whereby the entire departmental proceedings against the appellant/plaintiff have to be set aside including the order of removal from services.