Ramesh Singh v. Senior Commandant, Central Industrial Security Force Unit, Airport Security Unit, Thiruvananthapuram & Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN** **TUESDAY ,THE 26TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 / 5TH CHAITHRA, 1941** ## **WP(C).No. 7470 of 2012** ## **PETITIONER/S:** **NO.834150014, HEAD CONSTABLE RAMESH SINGH AGED 48 YEARS CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695008.** **BY ADV. SRI.S.VISHNU** |**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**|**RESPONDENT/S**<br>**:**| |---|---| |**1**|**THE SENIOR COMMANDANT, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL**| ||**SECURITY FORCE UNIT**| ||**AIRPORT SECURITY UNIT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM**| ||**INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-**| ||**695004.**| |**2**|**THE DEPUTY INSPECTOR GENERAL**| ||**AIRPORT SOUTH ZONE, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL**| ||**SECURITY FORCE, 2ND FLOOR, D BLOCK, RAJAJI**| ||**BHAVAN, BASANT NAGAR, CHENNAI-600090.**| |**3**|**THE INSPECTOR GENERAL**| ||**OFFICE OF THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL/AIRPORT**| ||**SECURITY, CENTRAL INDUSTRIAL SECURITY FORCE,**| ||**CGO COMPLEX, LODHI ROAD, NEW DELHI-110001.**| ||**BY ADVS.**| ||**SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN, CGC**| ||**SMT.O.M.SHALINA, CGC**| ||**ASSISTANT SOLICITOR GENERAL**| ||**SRI.P.MURALEEDHARAN CGC**| **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 7.03.2019, THE COURT ON 26.3.2019 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** 2 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ ## **ANU SIVARAMAN, J. ----------------------------------------------W.P(C).No. 7470 of 2012 ----------------------------------------------Dated this the 26[th] day of March, 2019** ## **JUDGMENT** This writ petition is filed challenging Exhibits P3, P5, P7 and P8 orders. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Central Government Counsel Sri.S.Vishnu. 3. The petitioner, who was working as Head Constable under the 1[st] respondent, was issued a memo of charges under Rule 36 of the Central Industrial Security Force Rules, 2001. The allegation was that the petitioner, while deployed at arrival (air side)/staff gate of domestic terminal of the Trivandrum Airport, did not carry out frisking of Rajasekaran Nair, Supervisor, M/s.Universal Aviation Servcie Pvt. Ltd. properly, when he entered air side resulting in Rajasekharan Nair carrying an explosive device and placing it in Kingfisher Flight IT4731. The petitioner submitted his reply on 9.5.2010. An enquiry report was drawn up finding the petitioner guilty. Exhibit P3 order dated 14.9.2010 was issued imposing penalty of reduction of pay by two stages for a period of one year. The petitioner submitted an appeal. However, Exhibit P4 show cause notice was issued on 31.1.2011 requiring the petitioner to show cause why the penalty shall not be enhanced to 3 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ reduction of pay by two stages for a period of five years. Though the petitioner submitted his objection, Exhibit P5 order was passed reducing the pay by two stages for two years. The petitioner submitted Exhibit P6 appeal, which was rejected by the 3[rd] respondent by Exhibit P6 proceedings. Though revisional remedy was also availed by the petitioner, the revision was also rejected by Exhibit P8 proceedings. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the enquiry was not properly conducted and was in gross violation of principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer had denied the required documents to the petitioner. It is stated that the documents were proved through the persons other than the authors of the same. It is contended that the documents relied upon in the enquiry to find the petitioner guilty was the communication sent by the Police Officer to the Deputy Commissioner of Police, Thiruvananthapuram City. It is stated that the document was proved by examining an emplyee of the CISF and not the author or recipient of the document. It is therefore contended that the entire proceedings are vitiated and are liable to be set aside. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on a decision of the Apex Court in _**Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank and Others**_ [2009 KHC 4143] to contend that the function of the enquiry officer is quasi judicial in nature and the contents of the documentary evidence in a disciplinary enquiry have to be proved by 4 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ examining appropriate witnesses. Relying on the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in _**Subramania Pillai K. v. Senior Divisional Manager, LIC and Others**_ [2009(3) KHC 787], it is contended that where documents were marked in the enquiry and their contents were relied on in the enquiry report without examining the authors of those documents, non examination would cause serious prejudice to the delinquent employee and the enquiry would be bad and in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is contended that the documents as mentioned in the enquiry are required to be properly proved and no amount of conjuncture could take the place of legal proof in an enquiry proceedings. 6. The learned Central Government Counsel would, on the other hand, rely on the decision of the Apex Court in _**Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India**_ [1987 KHC 784] to contend that non supply of documents which were not relied on by the enquiry officer to support the charges does not amount to violation of principles of natural justice. Relying on the decision in _**State of Haryana v. Rattan Singh**_ [1977 KHC 558], it is contended that a domestic enquiry is not a criminal trial and the rules of evidence under the Evidence Act may not apply to such proceedings. It is stated that all materials which are logically probative for a prudent mind are permissible in evidence and that sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by an domestic 5 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ tribunal is beyond scrutiny while exercising the powers of judicial review. 7. I have considered the contentions advanced at considerable length. 8. The question raised before me is with regard to the sufficiency of evidence adduced before an enquiry officer in support of the findings in a departmental proceedings. The enquiry officer, relying on the material produced before him, found that the petitioner was guilty as charged. The offence charged is admittedly a serious one. The enquiry officer took note of the evidence before him and found that the offence stood proved. The petitioner had examined the person who had allegedly taken the contraband into the airside and had placed in the aircraft. The defence evidence appears to have been properly considered by the enquiry officer as well. 9. The Apex Court in _**Rattan Singh's case (supra)**_ has held that in a domestic enquiry the Rules of evidence under Evidence Act may not apply. Sufficiency of evidence in proof of the finding by a Domestic Tribunal is beyond scrutiny in judicial review and it is only in the absence of any evidence in support of a finding that the court would be justified in interfering with such findings. Likewise, the reappreciation or re-evaluation of evidence is also not a matter which is also not an exercise which can be undertaken by this Court exercising 6 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ its power of judicial review. In _**Chandrama Tewari v. Union of India**_ [1987 KHC 784], the Apex Court has held that even in a case of non supply of a copy of the documents, it is only on the delinquent employee establishing that the non supply of the copy has caused prejudice to him that the disciplinary authorities can be interfered with. The Apex Court in _**Roop Singh Negi v. Punjab National Bank**_ [2009 KHC 4143] has held that a finding in an enquiry must be arrived at based on some evidence which is legally advisable. It is held that though the provisions of the Evidence Act may not be applicable, the principles of natural justice are to be followed and the findings in the enquiry report must be based on some evidence and should not be merely the ipse dixit of the enquiry officer or based on surmises and conjunctures. 10. The insufficiency of evidence and the lack of proof of the documents by the author of the same was specifically a ground which was taken up in appeal and revision by the petitioner. All aspects of the matter were also clearly considered by the appellate and revisional authorities who found from an over all consideration of the issue that the imposition of the enhanced penalty on the petitioner was perfectly justified in the facts and circumstances of the case. The only ground that the petitioner raised as against the orders imposing penalty is the insufficiency of the evidence before the enquiry officer. Going by the 7 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ decisions of the Apex Court on the matter, I am of the opinion that the insufficiency of the evidence before the enquiry officer is not a ground on which this Court can interfere in the orders passed in disciplinary proceedings. That issue had also been raised by the petitioner before the disciplinary authority, appellate authority and the revisional authority. All the authorities have considered the issue and have found that the petitioner is guilty as charged. An exercise by this Court to consider whether the proving of the documents by a person other than the author of the same would not be justified in the facts of the case. The writ petition therefore fails. The same is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- **ANU SIVARAMAN JUDGE** _vgs_ 8 _**WP(C).7470/12**_ ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:** **EXHIBIT P1 TRUE COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM NO.V15014/ASG(TVM)/DISC/(MAJ-04)/2010/2412 DATED 01.05.2010 ISSUED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P2 TRUE COPY OF REPLY DATED 09.05.2010 TO THE 1ST RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3 TRUE COPY OF THE FINAL ORDER NO.V15014/CISF/ASG(TVM)/UR-36(RS)/DISC/10/5303 DATED 14.09.2010 ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE CASO & COMMANDANT. EXHIBIT P4 TRUE COPY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE NO.V15019/L&R/AP-SZ/APL-13/2010/461 DATED 31.01.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V-15019/L&R/APSZ/APL-13/2010/1332 DATED 14.03.2011 ISSUED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P6 TRUE COPY OF THE APPEAL DATED 28.03.2011 TO THE 3RD RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P7 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER NO.V11014/APS/01/RK/LS/2011/10829 DATED 30.09.2011 ISSUED BY THE SPECIAL DIRECTOR GENERAL, AIRPORT SECURITY, NEW DELHI. EXHIBIT P8 TRUE COPY OF THE REVISIONAL ORDER NO.V11014/08/L&R/2011-315 DATED 09.03.2012 ISSUED BY DIRECTOR GENERAL, CISF. EXHIBIT P9 TRUE COPY OF STORES REQUISITION FORM NO.2623 DATED 20.01.2012 ISSUED BY THE AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA.**