P.S.PATWALIA, J. - (1.) This regular second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Division), Amritsar, duly affirmed by the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar.
(2.) There is a delay of 18 days in filing the appeal. For the reasons mentioned in the application, the delay of 18 days in filing the appeal is condoned. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant in support of the appeal. The appellant had joined service as a Constable in Madhya Pradesh Special Armed Force in April, 1964 and later on he was absorbed in Central Reserve Police Force in May, 1967 as a Head Constable. While posting in the 44th Battalion with camp at Amritsar in the year 1996 a departmental enquiry was initiated against him on the allegations that while functioning as Officer Commanding (Inspector) of 44th Battalion CRPF during the period April, 1998, he alleged committed misconduct as he failed to report a case of theft to the higher authorities and let off Constable Madho Behari Singh after accepting a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from him. There was a further allegation against him that he had accepted a stolen suit case containing the clothes of one Shri D.K.Dubey from Constable Madho Behari Singh. He had again demanded and accepted a sum of Rs.8,000/- as bribe to close that matter. It was a further allegation that he had taken Rs.1,500/- as loan from a Constable of his Battalion with a promise to return the same but later on asked the said constable to take back the same from Constable Madho Behari Singh. On the basis of these allegations a departmental enquiry was held. On the basis of the findings recorded in this enquiry by an order dated 3.3.1996, the appellant was compulsarily retired from service.
(3.) The appellant had challenged the legality of the enquiry. Repelling his challenge, the lower Appellate Court recorded the following findings:- "11. legality and validity of the impugned order has been mainly assailed on the ground that the witnesses have been examined during the course of enquiry but their names do not find mention in the list of witnesses. It has been pointed out that SI Nek Singh and Inspector Sohan Lal have been examined during the enquiry but their names have not been reflected in the list of witnesses copy whereof is Ex.D8. In this regard, it may be mentioned here that it cannot be said that the examination of these witnesses has caused any surprise to the appellant. It has been specifically mentioned in the list of witnesses that any other witness which the enquiry officer considers necessary, can be examined in the case. Subsequent to the examination of witnesses, an opportunity for cross examination has been afforded to the delinquent official. There is nothing on record to suggest that the delinquent official had requested for adjournment or sought time for the purposes of cross examination of the witnesses. The opportunity for cross examination of witnesses has been afforded to the plaintiff and material on record does not in any manner, indicate that any prejudice has been occurred to the plaintiff by examination of additional witnesses. The next limb of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant is to the effect that copy of confessional statement of constable Madho Behari Singh was not supplied to the appellant and further more the said statement cannot be read against him. It has been further pointed out that the evidence of the witnesses has not been properly evaluated during the course of enquiry. 12. Ex.D-7 is list of documents and the same is Annexure III with the memorandum Ex.D-5 issued by punishing authority. The preliminary statement of the plaintiff was recorded on 3.5.1995 and he has specifically and categorically admitted that he has received the memorandum alongwith Annexures I, II, III and IV. In these circumstances, the list of documents has been supplied to the appellant and he never agitated his claim for supplying of documents. With regard to the appraisal of evidence it may be recapitulated that the sufficiency of evidence has to be looked into by the departmental authorities during the course of departmental proceedings. The strict rules of evidence are not applicable in the departmental proceedings. Moreover, the Civil Court is not to sit on the findings of disciplinary authority as a Court of appeal. The appreciation of evidence is within domain and province of departmental authority. The Civil Court can interfere in the findings of the departmental authority in the event the same are perverse or based upon no evidence. In the case in hand the enquiry officer has based his findings on the material on record copy thereof was also supplied to the delinquent official. The representation was also made by the delinquent official to the punishing authority and all the points raised by the delinquent official have been looked into and considered by punishing authority in his order copy whereof is Ex.P3." "The material on record also indicates that the departmental proceedings have been conducted in consonance with the provisions of CRPF rules. The principles of natural justice have also been complied with. There is nothing to suggest that any prejudice has occurred to the plaintiff during the course of departmental proceedings. The impugned orders are legal and valid. In these circumstances, no illegality or irregularity is made out in the judgment of learned Trial Court. Accordingly, findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are affirmed and the appeal is dismissed, with costs.";