serious lacuna in the conduct of the departmental proceedings in not examining the vital witnesses = The perusal of the record would clearly reveal that an opportunity was given by the Appellate Authority to the Enquiry Committee to examine the important witnesses. Even on remand, the said three witnesses were not examined. 11. In the absence of the examination of these three vital witnesses, the Appellate Authority found that the charges against the respondent were not fully proved and taking into consideration this aspect, the learned Single Judge allowed the petition and the Division Bench affirmed the same.

NON­REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4410 OF 2012

UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS                   …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

SURESH KUMAR SINGH                      …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. The appeal challenges the order dated 14th March 2011 passed by

the   learned   Division   Bench   of   the   High   Court   at   Patna,   thereby

dismissing the appeal filed by the present appellants, which was in

turn filed challenging the order passed by the learned Single Judge of

the said High Court dated 28th  January 2010, thereby allowing the

writ application filed by the respondent.

2. The   departmental   proceedings   were   initiated   against   the

respondent on the basis of charges communicated to him in the office

order dated 11th October 1999. The allegation was that the appellant

allegedly asserted political pressure for cancellation of his transfer

order and thereby committed misconduct under Section 11 (1) of CRPF

1

Act, 1949.

3. It was further alleged that the respondent along with another

Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari made a telephone call to the Senior

CRPF   Officers   and   Additional   DIGP,   Mokamaghat   impersonating

himself as a Member of Parliament, Lok Sabha for getting the transfer

order cancelled.

4. In   the   departmental   proceedings,   the   respondent   was   found

guilty and was awarded the punishment of removal from service.  The

respondent challenged the same before the Appellate Authority­the

Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF, Patna in an appeal. The

Appellate Authority found that the departmental proceedings were not

conducted in accordance with the laid down procedure and as such,

remitted the same to the original authority­Office of Commandant 133

BN,   CRPF,   Patna   for   conducting   the   proceedings   denovo.     In   the

denovo proceedings also, the respondent was found guilty. Challenging

the same, another appeal came to be filed, which was partly allowed

on 10.01.2003.

5. The Appellate Authority found that the Enquiry Committee had

not recorded the statement of the then Additional DIGP, Mokamaghat,

Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari and the owner of the S.T.D booth

Ram   Tola,   which   were   very   relevant   for   the   case.     The   Appellate

2

Authority therefore modified the punishment of removal from service

and the respondent was awarded 28 days confinement to Quarter

Guard with forfeiture of pay and allowances. The intervening period

from the date of removal from service till the date of reinstatement was

directed   to   be   treated   as   extraordinary   leave.   The   respondent

challenged   the   same   by   way   of   a   revision   before   the   Revisional

Authority and the same was also dismissed.

6. The   respondent,   thereafter,   preferred   the   petition   before   the

learned Single Judge of the High Court. The learned Single Judge

specifically   referred   to   paragraph   4   of   the   order   of   the   Appellate

Authority dated 10th  January 2003 and found a serious lacuna that

the most vital witnesses, that is, the Additional DIGP, the owner of the

STD booth Ram Tola and the Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari were

not examined.   The learned Single Judge has set aside the penalty

imposed on the respondent and directed that the respondent would be

paid entire arrears of salary with consequential benefits with effect

from the date of removal till the date of reinstatement.

7. The appellants challenged the same before the learned Division

Bench,   which   also   found   that   the   case   was   of   no   evidence   and

approved   the   findings   as   recorded   by   the   learned   Single   Judge.

Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been filed. 

3

8. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, learned counsel appearing on behalf

of the Union of India, submits that the learned Single Judge of the

High   Court   as   well   as   the   Division   Bench   are   not   justified   in

interfering with the departmental proceedings and specifically in the

penalty as imposed. They rely on the judgment in State of Rajasthan

and  Others   v.   Sujata  Malhotra1

, to buttress his submission that

unless   the   High   Court   found   a   lacuna   in   the   departmental

proceedings, the interference with penalty was not warranted.

9. Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondent submits that the view taken by the learned Single Judge of

the High Court as well as the Division Bench are in accordance with

law and no interference was warranted.

10. The perusal of the record would clearly reveal that an opportunity

was given by the Appellate Authority to the Enquiry Committee to

examine the important witnesses. Even on remand, the said three

witnesses were not examined.

11. In the absence of the examination of these three vital witnesses,

the Appellate Authority found that the charges against the respondent

were not fully proved and taking into consideration this aspect, the

learned  Single  Judge  allowed  the   petition  and   the  Division  Bench

1 (2003) 9 SCC 286

4

affirmed the same.

12. Insofar as the judgment of this Court relied on by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellants is concerned, the same is not

applicable to the facts of the present case.   The present case has a

specific finding that there is a serious lacuna in the conduct of the

departmental proceedings in not examining the vital witnesses.

13. We, therefore, find no merit in the present appeal.  The appeal is

dismissed.  However, no order as to costs.

14. Taking into consideration that the respondent is deprived of the

benefits to which he is entitled to in law for a period of more than one

decade, we direct the appellants to clear all dues within a period of

three months from today.

15. Pending   application(s),   if   any,   shall   stand   disposed   of   in   the

above terms.

.........................J.

      (B.R. GAVAI)

…......................J.

New Delhi;  (HIMA KOHLI)

June 01, 2022.

5

ITEM NO.102 COURT NO.5 SECTION XVI

 S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A

 RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No.4410/2012

UNION OF INDIA & ORS. Appellant(s)

 VERSUS

SURESH KUMAR SINGH Respondent(s)

Date : 01-06-2022 This appeal was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.R. GAVAI

 HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE HIMA KOHLI

(Vacation Bench)

For Appellant(s) Mr. Rajeev Kumar Ranjan, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Neeraj Shekhar, AOR

Mr. Ashutosh Thakur, Adv.

Dr. Sumit Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Abhishek Pandey, Adv.

 UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

 O R D E R

The appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed non-reportable

judgment.

Pending application (s), if any, also stand disposed of.

(ARUSHI SUNEJA) (RANJANA SHAILEY)

SENIOR PERSONAL ASSISTANT COURT MASTER (NSH)

(Signed non-reportable judgment is placed on the file.)

6