ASHISH KUMAR BALA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Apoorva Tiwari and Sri Santosh Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Raj Kumar, learned counsel for Union of India.

(2.) On the aspect of the competence of the authorities who have passed the impugned orders and the procedure followed therefor, there is essentially no grievance raised by the petitioner. The dispute has come to be raised in peculiar circumstances. In the present case, it is the lack of direct evidence to support a charge which is the foundation of grounds urged before this Court. Praying for justice, the delinquent employee knocks the doors of this Court by saying that where a charge is not sustainable on the strength of direct oral evidence, notwithstanding the fact that prescribed procedure is followed, the impugned action nevertheless would stand vitiated in law, if findings of the enquiry officer on hearsay evidence are relied upon without application of mind and contrary to the mandate of the statutory rules. The enquiry report would thus be an eye wash and any punishment based on such an enquiry report based on the principle of preponderance of probability that too in a clumsy manner would vitiate the impugned punishment as a whole. The misconstruction of oral evidence far from being doubtless and direct, is yet another dimension of perversity which has been urged by the petitioner to demolish the validity of the impugned orders removing him from service.

(3.) In support of the charge sheet, six evidences were relied upon, namely, (i) duty register; (ii) medical report; (iii) complaint of Sanjeev Kumar Constable No. 961180158 being part of the preliminary report; (iv) complaint of Netrapal Constable No. 881180606 being part of the preliminary report; (v) Standing Orders; and (vi) preliminary enquiry report. Oral evidence of five witnesses was also mentioned in support of the charges, namely, Constable Netrapal, Constable Sanjeev Kumar, Constable Ramji Yadav, Hawaldar Ahibaran Singh and S.I. Ratan Bahadur Thapa posted in the office of Inspector General, Central Sector, CRPF. The enquiry officer was also left with the discretion of recording the evidence of any other witness. Though leaving the discretion of taking evidence of any other witness by the enquiry officer is not traceable to any rule but in absence of any protest raised by the petitioner in respect of recording oral evidence of many other witnesses, this Court would decline to take notice of such an issue.