LexSANJAY KUMAR SINGH versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c [2011] 11 S.C.R. 182 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 4888 of 2005) SEPTEMBER 6, 2011 [DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA AND ANIL R. DAVE, JJ.] . Service Law: Disciplinary proceedings - Water tanker and escort vehicle of CRPF attacked by militants - Five personnel out of six on the escort vehicle killed - Disciplinary proceedings initiated against personnel of water tanker and the survivor of 0 escort vehicle - They were found guilty of charges of disobedience of orders, committing gross misconduct and displaying cowardice in execution of their duties - Punishment of dismissal from service imposed - HELD: Inquiry Officer referred to the statements of the appellants and other materials E and came to the conclusion - Charge-sheet was supplied to appellants much in advance - List of witnesses was supplied to appellants and it was mentioned therein that any other witnesses could be examined - Appellants themselves refused to avail services of Defence Assistant - Appellants _ failed to show any prejudice to have been caused to them - F Therefore, it cannot be said that inquiry proceedings are vitiated or there is any violation of principles of natural justice - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - r. 27 - Principles of natural justice - Constitution of India, 1950: G CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: Articles 226 and 136 - Scope of, as regards disciplinary proceedings - HELD: It is for the departmental authorities to conduct an inquiry in accordance with the prescribed Rules H 182 SANJAY KUMAR SINGH v. UNION OF INDIA & ORS. 183 - The role of the court in the matter of departmental A proceedings is very limited and it cannot substitute its own views or findings by replacing the findings arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence on record - In the instant case, two Benches of the High Court have recorded concurrent findings that there is no violation of the B principles of natural justice and that the charges have been established against all the appellants and that the punishment awarded is not disproportionate to the offences alleged - Therefore, to re-appreciate the evidence and to come to a different finding would be beyond the scope of c Article 136 - The judgments and orders passed by High Court suffer from no infirmity - Service Law - Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 - r. 27. On 13-3-1999 the. appellants and five other personnel of the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) were detailed D to go in two vehicles, one as escort and the other a water tanker for bringing water from a certain water point. While " the water tanker, with the escort party following, was on its way to the water point, the militants ambushed the vehicles and started firing indiscriminately as a result of E which five CRPF personnel in the escort vehicle were killed. The appellants were the four who survived the ambush. Head Constable 'EH' was the only survivor of the escort vehicle who jumped out of the escort vehicle when the ambush took place leaving behind the wireless F set given to him in the truck itself. They were issued a charge-sheet with the allegations that they committed disobedience of orders, committed gross misconduct and displayed cowardice in execution of their duties and in their capacity as members of CRPF. The Inquiry Officer . G found the appellant& guilty of the charges framed. The disciplinary authority passed the order dated 13/15.1.2000 dismissing the appellants from service. Their statutory appeals were dismissed by the appellate authority, viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police, CRPF. Their writ H • 184 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 11 S.C.R. A petitions were dismissed by the Single Judge and their appeals were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court. B Dismissing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. A perusal of inquiry report would indicate that the Inquiry Officer in his report, apart from referring to the other materials on record, also referred to the statements of the appellants. It has come on record that 'SKS' was driving the water tanker when he heard a C sound. L/Nk 'JS' thought that there was a tyre burst and, therefore, he got down. Constable 'KNP' told 'SKS' that there was an ambush and when the latter found that the escort vehicle was not coming, he continued to drive the water tanker for 15 Kms without even waiting for L/Nk 'JS' D to re-boa
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.