B R SHARMA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The charges framed against the petitioner were |-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order passed by the respondent was whimsical, arbitrary and showed complete non-application of mind to the facts and circumstances of the case. This Court while exercising writ jurisdiction is not sitting in appeal over the orders passed by the respondents, however, from the facts stated before this Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusal from the material placed on record, there are grave discrepancies which have resulted in mis-carriage of justice. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the petitioner that in the statement of charge framed against the petitioner by the Commandant, which was issued on 25.10.1983, the date of occurrence was 20.9.1983 and the time was 1000 hrs. whereas in the statement of imputation of misconduct, which is at page-23 of the paper book, the Commandant has taken the date to be of 20.8.1983 instead of 20.9.1983.

(3.) Another infirmity, which has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the statement of PW-1, Smt.Kamla Devi, who deposed before the Enquiry Authority the date of incident is mentioned as 20.10.1983. One can presume that being a housewife she did not remember the date correctly, however, in the testimony N K Sandil, who was the husband of PW-1 and who deposed as PW-2 before the Enquiry Authority, the date of occurrence was 20.10.1983 whereas in the statement of imputation of misconduct the date was 20.9.1983. Even there was variation of timings, as per the charge sheet the time of alleged misbehaviour was 1000 hrs. whereas in the testimony of both PW-1 and PW-2 the time was 1100 hrs.