BIR SINGH Vs. SENIOR COMMANDANT, CISF
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
SENIOR COMMANDANT, CISF
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) The petitioner was working as a Head Constable in the Central Industrial
Security Force (CRPF) and posted at Indira Gandhi International Airport, New
Delhi. He was served with a charge-sheet in terms of Section 36 of the CISF
Rules, 2001, alleging misconduct in that he had allowed a person without any
pass or authority to go through the gate manned by him. The reply submitted by
the petitioner was not found satisfactory and an inquiry instituted in which,
apart from documentary evidence, statements of six witnesses were also recorded.
The Inquiry Officer, however, concluded that the charge against the petitioner
was not proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The Disciplinary Authority did not
agree with the said finding as according to it, the same was not based on a
proper appreciation of the material assembled during the course of the inquiry.
After giving to the petitioner an opportunity as to why he should not be held
guilty of the charge framed against him, the Disciplinary Authority dissented
from the report given by the Inquiry Officer, recorded a finding of guilt
against the petitioner and imposed a penalty of reduction of pay by one stage
from Rs. 4700/- to Rs. 4600/- for a period of one year with immediate effect.
(2.) Aggrieved by the above order, the petitioner preferred an appeal before
the Deputy Inspector General of CISF, which failed and was dismissed vide order
dated 18th September, 2006. Dissatisfied, the petitioner approached the
Inspector General of CISF in a Revision which affirmed the view taken by the
Disciplinary Authority and the DIG vide order dated 28th September, 2006,
holding that the charge framed against the petitioner has been proved and that
the punishment imposed by the Disciplinary Authority was in no way
disproportionate to the gravity of the offence committed by him. Aggrieved, the
petitioner preferred the present writ petition.
(3.) We have heard Mr. S. P. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner and
perused the record. The Disciplinary Authority, the Appellate Authority as also
the Revisional Authority have concurrently held the charges framed against the
petitioner to have been proved. Mr. Sharma's contention that the finding is
against the weight of evidence has not impressed us. So long as there is some
evidence which if believed can sustain the finding of guilt recorded against the
petitioner, this court would not embark upon re-appraisal of the material to
record a finding of its own. The authorities below were entitled to accept or
discard the evidence available on record and draw their conclusion. Inasmuch as
they have done so, they committed no illegality or irregularity to warrant
interference by a writ court, which does not sit in appeal over the findings of
fact recorded by a subordinate court or domestic tribunal.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.