Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a departmental proceeding initiated against Suresh Kumar Singh, a constable in the CRPF, on charges of misconduct under Section 11(1) of the CRPF Act, 1949. The allegation was that he asserted political pressure for cancellation of his transfer order and, along with another constable, made a telephone call impersonating a Member of Parliament to senior officers. In the initial departmental inquiry, he was found guilty and removed from service. On appeal, the Appellate Authority found procedural irregularities and remitted the matter for de novo proceedings. In the de novo proceedings, he was again found guilty. A second appeal was partly allowed, with the Appellate Authority noting that the Enquiry Committee had not recorded statements of three vital witnesses: the Additional DIGP, the owner of the STD booth, and Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari. The punishment was modified to 28 days confinement to Quarter Guard with forfeiture of pay and allowances, and the intervening period was treated as extraordinary leave. A revision was dismissed. The respondent then filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court. The learned Single Judge set aside the penalty, finding a serious lacuna in not examining the vital witnesses, and directed payment of entire arrears of salary with consequential benefits. The Division Bench affirmed this. The Union of India appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the High Court was justified in interfering as the case was one of 'no evidence' due to non-examination of vital witnesses. The court directed the appellants to clear all dues within three months, considering the respondent was deprived of benefits for over a decade.
Headnote
A) Service Law - Departmental Inquiry - Examination of Witnesses - CRPF Act, 1949, Section 11(1) - The respondent was charged with misconduct for allegedly impersonating a Member of Parliament to get his transfer order cancelled. The departmental proceedings resulted in removal from service. The Appellate Authority remitted the matter for de novo proceedings but the Enquiry Committee failed to examine three vital witnesses: the Additional DIGP, the owner of the STD booth, and Constable Satyendra Kumar Tiwari. The High Court set aside the penalty, finding a serious lacuna. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, holding that in the absence of examination of these witnesses, the charges were not fully proved, and interference was warranted. (Paras 2-13) B) Service Law - Judicial Review - Interference with Penalty - CRPF Act, 1949 - The Supreme Court held that the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Sujata Malhotra (2003) 9 SCC 286 was not applicable as the present case had a specific finding of serious lacuna in the departmental proceedings. The High Court was justified in interfering as the case was one of 'no evidence' due to non-examination of vital witnesses. (Paras 10-13)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the penalty imposed in departmental proceedings when vital witnesses were not examined, and whether the judgment in State of Rajasthan v. Sujata Malhotra applies to the present case.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's order setting aside the penalty. The court directed the appellants to clear all dues within three months from the date of judgment.
Law Points
- Departmental proceedings must be conducted fairly
- examination of vital witnesses is essential
- interference by High Court is justified when there is no evidence or serious lacuna
- penalty can be set aside if charges not fully proved due to missing witnesses
