REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4888 of  2005

SANJAY KUMAR SINGH            ....Appellant (s)

VERSUS

UNION OF INDIA & ORS.                              ....Respondent(s)

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4885 of 2005

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 4886-4887 of 2005

JUDGMENT

Dr. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, J.

1. By this common judgment and order we propose to dispose of all  

the four appeals which are interconnected as the issues and the  

facts arising for our consideration are similar.  They were heard  

together  and,  therefore,  a  common judgment  and order  is  also  

Page 1 of 15

passed.

2. These appeals are filed by the appellants being aggrieved by the  

judgment  and  order  dated  10.12.2003  passed  by  the  Gauhati  

High  Court  whereby  the  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  

dismissed  the  writ  appeals  of  the  appellants  and  thereby  

confirmed the judgment and order dated 16.8.02 passed by the  

learned single Judge dismissing all the writ petitions filed by the  

appellants holding that the appellants were given all reasonable  

opportunity  to  defend themselves  and,  therefore,  there  was  no  

merit in those writ petitions.

3. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeals are that  

on 13th March, 1999 the appellants and few others of the Central  

Reserve Police  Force  [for  short  “CRPF”]  while  serving  under  60  

Battalion stationed at Haflong were detailed to go in two vehicles,  

one as escort and other a water tanker for bringing water from  

Retezole Jatinga water point. Sanjay Kumar Singh, the driver, Jai  

Shankar Sharma and K.N. Paswan were in the water tanker and  

they were provided with an escort vehicle  which was driven by  

Jawahar Lal and the other occupants in the said escort vehicle  

were  Head  Constable  Emmanuel  Herenz;  L.  Nk.  Harendra  

Chowdhury; L. Nk. Jaswant Singh; Constable U.K.S. Gurung and  

Page 2 of 15

Constable  P.S.  Madhvi.  While  the  water  tanker  with the escort  

party  following  was  on  its  way  to  the  said  water  point,  the  

militants  ambushed  the  vehicles  and  started  firing  

indiscriminately as a result of which five CRPF personnel in the  

escort  vehicle  were  killed,  namely,  Driver  Jawahar  Lal;  L.  Nk.  

Harendra  Chowdhury;  L.  Nk.  Jaswant  Singh;  Constable  U.K.S.  

Gurung and Constable P.S. Madhvi. The appellants were the four  

who survived the ambush.  

4. Head  Constable  Emmanuel  Herenz  is  the  only  survivor  of  the  

escort  vehicle  who  jumped  out  of  the  escort  vehicle  when  the  

ambush took place leaving behind the wireless set given to him in  

the truck itself. It has also come on record that when the militants  

opened fire L. Nk. Jai Shankar Sharma sitting in the water tanker  

thought that there was a tyre burst. In order to look at it he got  

out of the water tanker when he came to realize that it is actually  

an attack by the militants.  In the meantime,  the driver  Sanjay  

Kumar Singh stopped for a while and thereafter drove away the  

tanker but L. Nk. Jai Shankar Sharma could not despite his best  

efforts re-board the vehicle. It has also come in evidence that the  

driver  of  the  tanker  took  the  vehicle  to  the  Haringajab  Police  

Station,  which  was  15  kilometers  away  from  the  scene  of  

occurrence,  and from there  he had allegedly  informed his  Unit  

Page 3 of 15

about the incident.  

5. When search parties reached the spot they found Head Constable  

Emmanuel Herenz hiding whereas L/Nk Jai Shankar Sharma who  

had also got down and had run away from the place of occurrence  

was found out from his hiding place which was under a gorge. On  

the  same day  the  Deputy  Commandant,  60  Battalion  lodged  a  

First Information Report with the officer-in-charge, Haflong Police  

Station  and  on  16.03.1999  all  the  appellants  were  suspended  

from service pending departmental proceedings against them. The  

appellants  were  thereafter  issued  a  chargesheet  with  the  

allegations that while the appellants were deputed to function as  

escort party to the water tanker, 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 two articles of charges framed against them read as  

follows: -

"Article-I:-

“.... Out of the two vehicles (Regn. No. DIG 3390  water truck (3/5 ton) and Regn. No. DL-IG 7976  escort  vehicle)  deputed with  escort  party  was   attacked  by  the  militants  by  laying  ambush.  The  above  personnel  instead  of  properly  retaliating  to  the  five  of  militants  in  said   ambush ran away as well as hiding themselves   in safe places by leaving the other escort party   personnel  trapped  in  the  ambush  and  as  a  

Page 4 of 15

result  of  which  five  personnel  namely,  L/Nk.  Harendra  Chaudhary,  L/Nk.  Yaswant  Singh,  Ct.  P.S.  Madhvi,  Ct.  U.  K.S.  Gurung  and  Ct./Dvr.  Jawahar  Lal  of  the  escort  party   belonging to this Unit were killed in the ambush  on  13.3.1999  and  their  weapons  and  one  wireless set were taken away by the militants.   Their  Act  of  running  away  from the  place  of   occurrence which leads to their cowardice act in  execution  of  duty  in  said  incident  of  ambush  instead of  retaliating  to  the fire of militants  to  injure or kill them for safety of force personnel  and  arms  ammunition  and  equipment  is  prejudicial,  to good order and discipline of the   Force.”

Article-II:-

“...  .That  during  the  aforesaid  period  and  functioning  in  aforesaid  Unit............  They  did  not  follow  the  orders/instructions  issued  to   them as escort party Comdr. which were to be  followed by them in case of any attack etc., by  militants on escort party and vehicles of which   they were the Commander. They also failed to   keep proper command and control on their party   personnel  effectively  by  timely  retaliating  the  fire of the militants  during the ambush......  As  such........ disobeyed the orders issued to them  in  their  capacity  of  commander  of  the  party   respectively and neglected in execution of their   duties which is prejudicial to be good order and  discipline of the Force.””

6. The departmental inquiry was thereafter initiated in terms of Rule  

26 of the Central Reserve Police Force Rules, 1955 [for short “the  

Rules”]. On completion of the inquiry a report was submitted by  

the  Inquiry  Officer  finding  the  appellants  guilty  of  the  charges  

framed but so far as L. Nk. Jai Shankar Sharma is concerned, the  

Page 5 of 15

Inquiry  Officer  although  found  one  of  the  charges  proved  but  

found the other charge only partially proved. After the submission  

of  the  said  report  to  the  disciplinary  authority,  viz.,  the  

Commandant  and  perusal  thereof,  the  disciplinary  authority  

passed  the  order  of  dismissal  from  service  by  order  dated  

13/15.1.2000.

7. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of dismissal passed against  

them  the  appellants  preferred  statutory  appeals  before  the  

appellate authority, viz., the Deputy Inspector General of Police,  

CRPF. The said appeals were however dismissed, as against which  

the writ petitions were filed in the Gauhati High Court which were  

heard  by  the  learned  single  Judge  and  he  dismissed  the  writ  

petitions.  

8. The appellants still  aggrieved filed writ  appeals before the High  

Court  which  were  also  dismissed  in  the  aforesaid  terms.  

Consequently,  the  present  appeals  were  preferred on which we  

heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

9. Counsel  appearing for  the  appellants submitted that there was  

violation of the principles of natural justice in the departmental  

proceedings as the appellants were not given the list of witnesses  

and that some witnesses were examined who were not even cited  

Page 6 of 15

as witnesses in the said list. It was also submitted that no Defence  

Assistant was provided to the appellants for assisting them in the  

departmental proceeding. It was further submitted that although  

the Inquiry Officer found one of the charges only partially proved  

as against L/Nk Jai Shankar Sharma, however, the disciplinary  

authority without showing any reason for disagreement held the  

said charge as also wholly proved. It was also submitted that the  

charges  were  not  read  over  to  the  appellants  in  terms  of  the  

mandatory  Rule  being  Rule  27(c).  One  of  the  submissions  on  

behalf of Sanjay Kumar Singh was that he was not granted any  

arms  and  ammunition  and,  therefore,  the  finding  that  he  had  

violated the standing orders is wrong and illegal.

10.Counsel appearing for the respondents however took us through  

the entire records to support his submission that there was no  

violation  of  the  principles  of  natural  justice  at  all.  He  also  

submitted that  no prejudice  is  caused to the  appellants in the  

entire departmental proceedings in which reasonable opportunity  

was granted to the appellants at every stage and, therefore, the  

allegations  are  without  any  basis.  He  drew  our  attention  

extensively to the inquiry report submitted by the Inquiry Officer  

to support his contention that the appellants were provided with  

all opportunities to defend themselves. He also submitted that the  

Page 7 of 15

punishments given to the appellants were commensurate with the  

offences alleged against them.

11.In order to appreciate the contentions put forth by the counsel  

appearing for the parties we have perused the records. A perusal  

of inquiry report would indicate that 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  

Sanjay Kumar Singh was driving the water tanker when he heard  

a sound.

12.L/Nk Jai Shankar Sharma thought that there was a tyre burst  

and, therefore, he got down but immediately after getting down he  

came to realize that there is an attack by the militants. Constable  

K.N. Paswan told Sanjay Kumar Singh that there was an ambush  

and when Sanjay Kumar Singh found that the escort vehicle was  

not coming, he continued to drive the water tanker for 15 Kms  

without even waiting for L/Nk Jai Shankar Sharma to reboard the  

vehicle  and  went  to  Haringajab  Police  Station  from  where  he  

allegedly informed his Unit.  

13. The statement of L/Nk Jai Shankar Sharma is to the effect that  

after getting down from the vehicle he retaliated the fire which was  

actually directionless and he ran after his vehicle but could not  

Page 8 of 15

catch it as the vehicle moved forward. Therefore, he hid himself in  

a gorge and came out of his hiding place after 1-11/2hour when  

Shri S.S. Gohar came with a party from the battalion headquarter.  

L/Nk  Jai  Shankar  Sharma  also  stated  in  his  statement  that  

although he was provided with 40 rounds but he could fire only  

14 rounds during the said attack.

14.Head Constable  Emmanuel  Herenz,  one of  the appellants,  also  

gave a statement that at the time of the attack; he jumped and  

took  shelter  in  a  banana  grove.  He  admitted  that  he  left  his  

wireless set in the vehicle and that it was not in the vehicle when  

he came back.

15.Our attention was also drawn to the handbook of the CRPF which  

makes  it  mandatory  for  each  of  the  constables  to  carry  arms  

whenever they go out in a militancy infested area. Sanjay Kumar  

Singh  although  was  a  driver,  he  was  also  a  constable  and,  

therefore, he was bound by the aforesaid instructions issued. It is  

alleged that he did not follow the said instructions and, therefore,  

there was dereliction of duty and also misconduct on his part.  

16.It  appears  that  the  driver  of  the  escort  vehicle,  who  was  also  

killed, also did not carry any weapon with him and nor did Sanjay  

Kumar Singh,  although,  he  was required to carry weapon with  

Page 9 of 15

him. His only defence is that although others were provided with  

arms and ammunition in the Unit  itself,  he was not given any  

arms  and  ammunition.  A  CRPF  personnel  is  expected  to  be  

properly armed in a militancy infested area so as to enable him to  

face all eventuality and the said arms are required to be collected  

while going to any place, according to command.

17.Sanjay Kumar Singh would have been justified in taking up a  

plea of  the aforesaid nature if  despite  his  asking for  arms and  

ammunition was not  provided any such arms and ammunition  

from the Unit.  However, Sanjay Kumar Singh has not been able  

to prove that he had gone to the Unit where arms and ammunition  

are kept for taking it with him and also that he had in fact asked  

for  it.  There  is  nothing  on  record  to  show that  Sanjay  Kumar  

Singh had exactly complied and followed the prescribed procedure  

and requested for giving him the arms as he was going out of the  

Unit. The aforesaid defence which is sought to be taken appears to  

be baseless.

18. So far the issue with regard to violation of the principles of natural  

justice in conducting the departmental inquiry is concerned, the  

aforesaid submission is made on the ground that the chargesheet  

was not read out and issued in accordance with the provisions of  

Page 10 of 15

Rule 27(c) of the Rules. On going through the records we find that  

the chargesheet was issued to the appellants on 11th August, 1999  

whereas the trial  started only on 20.09.1999.  Therefore,  it  was  

issued much before seven days as required to be done prior to  

holding of the trial.

19. So far the question of reading out the chargesheet is concerned, it  

appears  that  the  chargesheet  was  read  out  when  the  trial  

commenced on 20th September,  1999 and the first  witness  HC  

Bahadur Singh was examined on 21.09.1999 whereas, the second  

witness was examined on 25.09.1999 and the next witness was  

examined  on  29.9.1999.  As  the  chargesheet  was  sent  to  the  

appellants on 11th August, 1999, therefore, they were fully aware  

of the contents of the chargesheet. So far as the issue with regard  

to the reading out of the chargesheet is concerned, the same could  

be read out only when the trial begins in order to find out whether  

the appellants plead guilty to the charges or not and immediately  

thereafter  the  trial  commences.  We  do  not  see  any  prejudice  

caused  to  the  appellants  because  one  of  the  witnesses  was  

examined  in  the  trial  before  expiry  of  forty  eight  hours,  

particularly  in  view  of  the  fact  that  the  appellants  were  made  

aware of the contents of the charges much prior.

Page 11 of 15

20.In  our  considered  opinion,  no  prejudice  is  caused  to  the  

appellants for not giving 48 hours after reading out the charges to  

them. Only one witness was examined within that 48 hours period  

whereas  the  next  two witnesses  were  examined beyond the  48  

hours  period.  The  appellants  have  not  been  able  to  show any  

prejudice caused to them due to examining of Bahadur Singh on  

21.09.1999.  

21.It was also submitted that no Defence Assistant was provided to  

the appellants as required under the provisions of the Rules. It is  

true that a Defence Assistant is to be provided by the authority to  

assist the delinquent officer in conducting the inquiry but in the  

present case the records disclose that the appellants were asked  

as to whether they would require any Defence Assistant for their  

aid and assistance. Each one of them has specifically stated in the  

inquiry  proceedings  itself  that  they  do  not  need  any  Defence  

Assistant.  They  have  in  fact  cross-examined  the  witnesses  

themselves, for which opportunity was granted to them.  

22.So  far  as  the  contention  of  the  Counsel  appearing  for  the  

appellants  that  some  of  the  witnesses  whose  names  were  not  

mentioned in the list of witnesses were examined is concerned, we  

find that a list of witnesses was also supplied to the appellants  

Page 12 of 15

along  with  the  chargesheet  issued  to  them.  Therefore,  the  

appellants were fully aware as to who were the persons who are  

going to be examined in the proceeding. There were of course two  

witnesses who were not specifically named in the list of witnesses  

but when we refer to the list of witnesses the same makes it clear  

and prove that in that list it has categorically been mentioned that  

there could be any other witness, other than those who are cited  

specifically in the list.  

23. We may here  refer  to  the  decision  of  this  Court  in  Managing  

Director, ECIL, Hyderabad and Ors. v.  B. Karunakar & Ors.  

reported in (1993) 4 SCC 727 wherein this Court has held that  

unless and until  it  is shown that prejudice has been caused it  

cannot be said that the inquiry proceeding is vitiated or that there  

is any violation of principles of natural justice. To the same effect  

is the decision of this Court in the case of Union of India & Ors.  

v. Alok Kumar reported in (2010) 5 SCC 349.

24.So far as the departmental proceedings are concerned it is for the  

departmental authorities to conduct an inquiry in accordance with  

the  prescribed  Rules.  The  role  of  the  Court  in  the  matter  of  

departmental  proceedings is  very limited and the Court  cannot  

substitute  its  own  views  or  findings  by  replacing  the  findings  

Page 13 of 15

arrived at by the authority on detailed appreciation of the evidence  

on record.  

25.In the present case two Benches of the High Court after looking  

into  the  records  have  found  that  there  is  no  violation  of  the  

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. After the  

said findings have been recorded by the learned Single Judge and  

the Division Bench, there is hardly any scope for this Court to  

substitute its findings and come to a different conclusion, by re-

appreciating the evidence. The findings recorded by the Benches  

of the High Court are concurrent findings and the same cannot be  

interfered with lightly.

26.In our considered opinion, to re-appreciate the evidence and to  

come to a different finding would be beyond the scope of Article  

136  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  Therefore,  we  hold  that  the  

judgment and order  passed by the High Court  suffers from no  

infirmity.  

27.Accordingly,  the appeals  have  no merit  and are  dismissed but  

without any order as to costs.

Page 14 of 15

          ............................................J                                          [Dr. Mukundakam Sharma]

............................................J                   [Anil R. Dave]

New Delhi September 6, 2011

Page 15 of 15