RAJ MURTI MISHRA Vs. THE UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition has been filed by petitioner Raj Murti Mishra assailing order dt. 12.01.1994 of the disciplinary authority whereby he has been awarded penalty of reduction in time scale of pay by two stages from Rs. 1120/ - to Rs. 1080/ - for a period of two years with cumulative effect, order dt. 04.03.1994 whereby appeal filed by him against said order was dismissed by the appellate, order dt. 23.02.1995 whereby revision was dismissed by the revisional authority and order dt. 06.05.1996 whereby his mercy petition was also dismissed. Facts of the case are that the petitioner was working as Constable in the Railway Protection Force. A preliminary enquiry report was submitted to the disciplinary authority on 28.09.1993 with regard to one Almirah lying in the Fire Station 'A' on allegation that certain stolen goods were stored therein. On the assumption that the Almirah belonged to the petitioner, he was served with the charge -sheet on 10.09.1993. One V.N. Dubey, an officer of the rank of I.P.F., was appointed as Enquiry Officer. It was alleged that one wooden piece, an iron plate, two cane of five liter and two packet of aluminum, lying in that Almirah, belonged to petitioner. These were Railway properties and unlawfully obtained by him. Petitioner submitted a written reply to the charge -sheet denying the charges. The department examined number of witnesses, namely, Shri N.K. Pillai, Inspector (Fire), Shri N.B. Sawant, Sub Inspector (Fire), Shri S.N. Yadav, Shri Jafrool Hussain, Head Constable (Fire), Shri Ganga Ram Patil, Head Constable, Madhukar T., Constable, Harsh Singh and Hari Das Ganpat Rao Bhasme. The statement of petitioner was also recorded. He submitted defence in writing. The Enquiry Officer in his report found the petitioner guilty of the charge. The Divisional Security Commissioner supplied copy of the enquiry report dt. 20.12.1993 to the petitioner calling upon him to submit his representation on the findings. Petitioner submitted representation on 01.01.1994 reiterating his contentions raised in the written statement and denied the charges. The disciplinary authority by order dt. 12.01.1994 awarded him penalty of reduction in pay scale by two stages for the period of two years with cumulative effect. Thereafter his appeal, revision petition, review petition and mercy petition were also dismissed by afore -mentioned orders. Hence, this writ petition.

(2.) SHRI Reashm Bhargava, learned counsel for petitioner, argued that the impugned orders suffer from non -application of mind inasmuch as there was no evidence against the petitioner, but even then he has been held guilty and awarded penalty. The Enquiry Officer did not appreciate that there was no positive/legal/substantive evidence against the petitioner. Not only this, there was no direct or circumstantial evidence to connect the petitioner with the items that were found stored in the Almirah at Fire Station 'A'. The Enquiry Officer failed to notice that the petitioner, at the relevant time, was not posted at the Fire Station 'A', where alleged Almirah was lying. There was no mark of any kind to show connection of that Almirah with the petitioner nor was it officially allotted to him. The Enquiry Officer has proceeded to hold the petitioner guilty only on hearsay evidence. Both, the disciplinary authority as well as the appellate authority, have failed to consider that the petitioner could not be held guilty and penalized in a case where there was total lack of evidence. None of these authorities considered the submissions of the petitioner raised in his written defence. Except Constable Ganga Ram Patil, no other witness has stated that he saw the petitioner visiting the Fire Station 'A' or operating the Almirah.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner, in support of his arguments, has relied on judgments of the Supreme Court in State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Chintaman Sadashiva Waishampayan,, AIR 1961 SC 1623, Union of India and Ors. vs. Naman Singh Shekhawat, : (2008) 4 SCC 1, The State of Punjab and Ors. vs. Bakhtawar Singh and Ors., : (1972) 4 SCC 730, Union of India vs. H.C. Goel, : AIR 1964 SC 364, and that of other High Courts in P. Sreeramulu and Anr. vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, : AIR 1970 AP 114, Hirendra Nath Haider vs. Union of India and Ors.,, (2007) 1 WBLR (Cal) 424, Santosh Kumar Dubey vs. Steel Authority of India Limited and Ors., : 2009 (1) AIR Jhar R 44, A.P.E.P. Discom Ltd., Visakhapatnam and Anr. vs. Varahagiri Mangaiah, Amalapuram and Anr., : 2014 (1) ALT 90 (DB).