DARSHAN SINGH Vs. DISTRICT & SESSION JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against judgement dated 16.2.2011 rendered by the learned Single Judge modifying the order dated 24.5.2010 passed by the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon to the extent that supplementary Inquiry shall pertain to charge No. (viii) only which shall be conducted on day to day basis by the Addl. District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. The Inquiry report is required to be submitted to the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon on or before 31.8.2011. In case the appellant fails to cooperate then the Inquiry Officer was at liberty to proceed against the appellant in accordance with law.

(2.) Brief facts of the case may first be noticed. The appellant was issued a charge sheet by the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon- respondent no. 1 on 19.12.2006 (P.1). According to the statement of allegations, the appellant who was posted as a copyist in the Copying Agency along with one Naveen had approached the complainant on 16.3.2006 and told him that the appellant could get the Civil Suit titled as Hira Lal v. Santosh pending in the Court of Shri Baljit Singh, Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Rewari decided in his favour as the appellant has cordial relationship with the Presiding Officer because he remained as Reader with him during the period when he was posted as Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Ferozepur Jhirka. On 17.3.2006, he also introduced another official Harvinder Singh to the complainant and the appellant alongwith Naveen and Harvinder Singh went to the residence of the Presiding Officer Shri Baljit Singh. Thereafter, the appellant alleged to have demanded a sum of rupees two lakhs from the complainant to get his case decided in his favour. Naturally Parveen Rao was tempted and sent his brother Vikas Rao to the residence of the Presiding Officer. Vikas Rao handed over a sum of rupees one lakh to the appellant. He was also given a sum of Rs. 10,000/- by Parveen Rao as his personal expenses. The balance amount could not be paid by the complainant and eventually the case was decided against him on 18.4.2006. On the excuse that the whole amount was not paid therefore the case has been decided against the complainant and that there was some pressure of an IAS officer upon the Presiding Officer to decide the case in favour of the other side. Even the appellant refused to return the amount taken from Parveen Rao. The allegation further is that the entire conversation between the appellant, Naveen and complainant was recorded by the complainant in a Compact Disc (CD) which alongwith the complaint was sent to the High Court. The complaint alongwith the CD was also forwarded to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti Corruption Branch, Sector 30A, Chandigarh with a direction to getthe voice of the court official matched. Shri Jai Singh, Inspector CBI recorded the specimen of voice of Naveen Kumar in the presence of the District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon. However, the appellant initially showed his willingness to give specimen of his voice but later on refused to give his specimen of voice. Accordingly a charge sheet under Rule 7 read with Rule 4 of the Haryana Civil Services (Punishment and Appeal), Rules, 1987 read with Rule 12(2) of the Haryana Subordinate Courts Establishment (Recruitment and General Conditions of Service) Rules, 1997 with issued. The appellant filed reply to the charge sheet and a regular departmental Inquiry was held. Vide report dated 26.4.2010, the Inquiry Officer absolved the appellant of all the charges. The District and Sessions Judge, Gurgaon accepted the findings of the Inquiry Officer in respect of charges mentioned in paras (i) to (vii) and concluded that the Inquiry Officer has rightly recorded the finding that evidence from the file is not sufficient to prove those allegations because neither the complainant Parveen Rao nor his brother Vikas Rao who were the only material witnesses, have been examined during the Inquiry to substantiate the allegations.

(3.) However, in respect of the charge No. mentioned in para(viii) against the appellant that he has resiled from the statement given before the District and Sessions Judge for giving his sample voice to compare the same with the tape recorded conversation between him Naveen and Praveen Rao, the District and Sessions Judge came to the conclusion that the allegations levelled in this para stand fully proved that refusal to give his sample voice would lead to the legitimate adverse inference that he was guilty and the relevant CD contained his voice. The District and Sessions Judge further held that the Inquiry Officer has not at all discussed/ dealt with the aforesaid aspect of the matter in his report. The conclusion reached by the District and Sessions Judge is discernible from paras 5 and 6 of the show cause notice issued to the appellant which reads thus: