UNION OF INDIA Vs. PRADEEPKUMAR RAMJILAL YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code is by the original defendants against who the respondent ­ original plaintiff had filed Regular Civil Suit No.1369 of 1996 for declaration and permanent injunction.

(2.) THE case of the plaintiff is that he was appointed as a Sainik in Rajkot Division on 27.07.1989 and had put in 7 years of unblemished service. On 31.09.1996, when the plaintiff was on duty at Wind Mill, he detected one accused carrying half bag of wheat from the Railway premises. The said accused was handed over by the plaintiff with muddamal to Shri R. K. Dubey, Sub Inspector, R.P.F. of Jamnagar. On the next day, the plaintiff found that the accused was let go without registering F.I.R against him. The plaintiff, therefore, reported the said act of Shri R. K. Dubey to D.S.C ­ the defendant No.2 and to the Chief Security Commissioner, Bombay and requested to hold necessary inquiry into such incident. It is further case of the plaintiff that because of such report made by the plaintiff, Shri Dubey, Sub Inspector, R.P.F., Jamnagar was annoyed and kept prejudice against the plaintiff and threatened the plaintiff to see that how the plaintiff could work in the railway service at Wind Mill. Shri Dubey, therefore gave false report on 15.03.1996 to D.F.C stating that the plaintiff had assaulted him in the office. On the basis of such false report, defendant No.2 issued charge-sheet on 12.04.1996 to the plaintiff. Prior to such charge-sheet, the plaintiff was already put under suspension by order dated 23.07.1996. It is case of the plaintiff that after preliminary inquiry, the inquiry officer was appointed to hold regular inquiry. However, the inquiry officer acted as presenting officer and cross-examined the witnesses of the department, and did not permit the plaintiff to examine his witnesses though the plaintiff had made application on 15.05.1996 seeking permission to examine the witnesses in his defence. The inquiry officer by letter dated 22.05.1996 refused to call for witnesses of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff was not given proper opportunity to produce his defence witnesses and thus, there was a breach of principles of natural justice. It is further case of the plaintiff that in respect of the alleged incident of assault for which departmental inquiry was held, a criminal complaint being C.R.No.7/1996 under Section 323 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged against the plaintiff and even one Shri Guru Prasad Dubey, cousin brother of Shri R. K. Dubey had also lodged separate complaint being C.R.No.298/1996 against the plaintiff under Sections 323 and 506(2) of the Indian Penal code at the instance of Shri R. K. Dubey with sole intention to harass the plaintiff. The plaintiff has further averred that the inquiry was illegal and that order of removing the plaintiff from service was passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The plaintiff was not given reasonable opportunity to produce the witnesses in his defence, that the findings of inquiry officer dated 28.05.1996 are illegal and not based on the legal evidence and lastly that the defence put-forth was not discussed by the competent authority while passing the order of removal.

(3.) BEFORE the Trial Court, both the parties produced documentary evidence which are mainly in connection with the departmental proceedings and ultimate order of punishment. The plaintiff also produced copies of the judgment delivered in the criminal complaint filed against him whereby the plaintiff was acquitted from the criminal charges in respect of the alleged incident of assault on Shri Dubey by the plaintiff.