TRAILOKYANATH KHUNTIA Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the order of punishment vide Annexure-13 and also the order of rejection of the appeal at the instance of the petitioner vide Annexure-15 and thereby seeking a direction to the opposite parties to hold the petitioner entitled to arrear service benefit.

(2.) Short background involved in this case is that the petitioner while continuing as the Deputy Commandant, C.R.P.F., Bhubaneswar was served with a set of memorandum on 7.4.97 involving articles of charges that while the petitioner was continuing as Deputy Commandant, 43 Bn. CRPF under Bhubaneswar, particularly while posted in 41 Bn., Barbera, Balugaon, Puri during the year 1994-95, committed serious misconduct by developing physical intimacy with an unmarried girl under the false assurance that he will marry her. As a result of his physical intimacy with the said girl, she became pregnant. Thereafter on 28.1.1995 he entered into a court marriage with her in the court of the Sub-Registrar, Cuttack but later on deserted her and refused to accept her as his wife, further got engaged with another girl for solemnizing his marriage. Thus the petitioner was departmentally proceeded with as per rule 3(1)(iii) of the CCS (Conduct) Rules, 1964. Upon receipt of charges framed against him, on 12.5.1997 the petitioner submitted a letter to the D.G. of Police, CRPF to supply him the copies of the documents relied upon and the statement of witnesses to enable him to respond appropriately. On 11.6.1997 the petitioner alleged to have made another representation to allow him to get the documents and other case records which was subject matter of litigation before involving the civil and criminal proceedings. On 22.07.1997 the Enquiry Officer was appointed along with appointment of Presenting Officer. It is, at this stage petitioner submitted representation to be defended by Shri Rangadhar Mishra, Rtd. Officer of the I.F.S. cadre. On 9.10.1997 the Defence Assistant filed memorandum to supply the petitioner documents listed vide Annexure-3. The enquiry was adjourned to different dates. In the meanwhile, on 27.11.1997 a letter was addressed by the Defence Assistant to supply the statement of witnesses who were examined during the preliminary enquiry. It is alleged that the request for supply of the statement of witnesses examined during preliminary enquiry was rejected on the premises that same has no relevancy at that particular stage, but however, with a promise to the petitioner that he will be supplied with such copies only after recording of prosecution evidence as at Annexure-8. It is further pleaded that on 28.11.1997 the statement of witnesses who were examined during preliminary enquiry, was supplied to the petitioner. While the enquiry date was fixed the statement of P.Ws.2 and 3 were recorded and the next date of hearing was fixed to 29th, 30th and 31st of January, 1998. On 27th and 28th the statement of witnesses were recorded. For absence of Defence Assistant P.Ws.1, 2 and 3 were not examined. But however on 27.1.1998 the statement of P.W.1 was furnished to the petitioner. The enquiry was again adjourned to 18th and 19th of March when the petitioner was given opportunity to cross- examine P.Ws.1, 2 and 3. The petitioner alleged, the Defence Assistant who was allowed to be engaged on behalf of the petitioner was objected by P.Ws.1 and 2. After bringing to the notice of the Disciplinary Authority the name of the Defence Assistant, the petitioner requested to give him copy of preliminary enquiry report. After examination of witness of both side the E.O. submitted his report indicating that the charges leveled against the petitioner has been partially proved to the extent that he had developed physical intimacy with an unmarried girl and later on engaged with another lady on his refusal to accept the first one as wife. Based on the enquiry the opposite party no.2 issued a notice of show cause to the petitioner indicating therein his disagreement with the findings of the E.O. To which the petitioner responded on 27.11.1999. The Disciplinary Authority finally punished the petitioner thereby reducing the pay of the petitioner to the lowest stage of Rs.10,000/- in the time scale of pay of Rs.10,000/--375.00-15,200/- for a period of five years w.e.f. 15.1.2001 with further direction that he shall not earn increments of pay during such period and on expiry of period of reduction, it will have the effect of postponing of his future increments of pay. Upon receipt of punishment order the petitioner filed appeal, which has been rejected by appellate authority on 7.7.2001 resulting filing of the present Writ Petition.

(3.) Shri Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner assailed the impugned order on the premises that the enquiry suffers for non- supply of documents in spite of his asking for supply of the same. Petitioner also challenged the order of the Disciplinary Authority on the premises that the enquiry vitiates for appointment of Enquiry Officer before submission of explanation by the delinquent. So far as the appeal order is concerned petitioner also challenged the same on the premises that the appellate authority dismissed the appeal not only without dealing with the grounds raised by the petitioner but the appeal order also suffers for having no reason. Petitioner also relied on some decisions which are reflected as follows: (1) in the case of Govt. of A.P. and Others versus A. Venkata Raidu as reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338, (2) in the case of S.P. Malhotra versus Punjab National Bank and others as reported in (2013) 7 SCC 251, (3) in the case of State of Punjab versus V.K. Khanna and others with Civil Appeal No.6964 of 2000 in the case of Sardar Prakash Singh Badal versus V.K. Khanna and others as reported in (2001) 2 SCC 330 (4) Civil Appeal No.695 of 1971 in the case of Union of India versus Mohanlal Capoor and others, Civil Appeal nos.614-617 of 1971 in the case of State of Uttar Pradesh and another versus K.N. Misra and others Etc. Civil Appeals Nos.695 and 614-617 of 1971, decided on September 26, 1973 as reported in (1973) 2 SCC 836, (5) in the case of Sanjay Kumar Rout versus State of Odisha and others as reported in AIR 2018 Ori. 162, (6) in the case of Ranjit Singh versus Union of India and others as reported in (2006) 4 SCC 153, (7) in the case of Roop Singh Negi versus Punjab National Bank and others as reported in (2009) 2 SCC 570 (8) in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited and another versus Masood Ahmed Khan and others as reported in (2010) 9 SCC 496.