(Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
Union of India & Ors. etc. ___________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Sabyasachi Jyoti & Ors. etc. ________________________ Respondent(s)
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1727-1730 of 2010, decided on February 1, 2018
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. The challenge in these appeals by way of special leave is to an order of the High Court of Bombay dated 7th August, 2008 by which the findings on guilt recorded against the respondents – delinquents who were sailors in the Indian Navy have been set aside along with the penalty/punishment imposed.
2. The respondents were charged with misconduct of making available the results of recruitment examination(s) to unauthorized persons for undue pecuniary gain. The procedure contemplated by Regulations 25 to 28 of the Regulations for the Navy Part II (Statutory) (hereinafter referred to as “the Regulations”) which govern the proceedings of enquiry were brought into force and the delinquent – respondents allegedly admitted their guilt by making confessional statements. Taking into account the same and the other materials on record the Investigating Officer competent to deal with the matter recorded a finding of guilt and imposed penalty including confinement which was approved by the next Superior Authority. The review petitions filed by the delinquent – respondents against the aforesaid order were also dismissed by the Central Government. In the resultant writ petitions, the High Court took the view that under Regulation 27 of the Regulations it was mandatory on the part of the concerned authority to read out the charges framed against the delinquents and make available to them a copy of the charge-sheet. As the same was not done, the High Court construed the aforesaid deficiency to be amounting to a breach of the rights of the delinquents to a fair opportunity. Consequently, the findings recorded and the penalty/punishment imposed were set aside. Aggrieved, the present appeals have been filed.
3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties.
4. We have perused the photocopies of the Original Record pertaining to the proceedings held against the delinquents-respondents which have been brought on record by the appellants by filing an Additional Affidavit on 16th August, 2010. A reading of the proceedings recorded, insofar as the communication of the charges to the delinquents is concerned, their admission of guilt and the version(s) put forward by them, in our considered view, clearly indicate that though the charges may not have been read over or a copy of the memo of charges may not have been furnished to the delinquents, the delinquents were in full know of the charges leveled against them. This is not only evident from the confessional statement of the delinquents but also from the statement submitted by them in the course of the enquiry in their own handwriting. If the records proves and establishes the above facts we cannot understand how the alleged failure of the Union of India to read out the charges to the delinquents – respondents could have caused any prejudice to them so as to enable the High Court to take the view recorded in the impugned order.
5. Learned counsel for the respondents – delinquents has made vehement submissions before us with regard to the involuntary nature of the confessional statements; reliance placed on the statement of one delinquent to determine the liability of another; and also the breach of elementary principles of a fair adjudication.
6. Even though we do not agree with the order of the High Court and the same is liable to be interdicted on the grounds mentioned above, to satisfy the judicial conscience, in view of the emphatic submissions made at the bar on behalf of the delinquents – respondents, we have perused the entire of the records in-original, photocopies of which had been brought on record in the Additional Affidavit of the appellants. The statement of the delinquents – respondents recorded in their own handwriting in the course of the proceedings bare ample testimony to the fact that the delinquents – respondents were in full know of the charges leveled against them and they had virtually admitted their guilt. Insofar as the confessional statements are concerned, the plea with regard to involuntariness of the same was raised at a very advanced stage i.e. in the review petitions before the Central Government. The fact that the delinquents had the services of Defence Officers who were in the ranks of Medical Assistants First Class, Commander and Lieutenant Commander (Special Duties Regulating) is another fact that cannot be ignored in adjudging the acceptability of the version put forward on behalf of the respondents – delinquents with regard to involuntary nature of the confession. That apart, if the statements of Master Suresh Nambiar and Prakash Sharma, Medical Assistants First Class are to be considered we find sufficient material to sustain the view that has been taken by the Authorities below before the same were interdicted by the High Court. The proceedings against the respondents will not be governed by strict rules of evidence so as to exclude from consideration the statement of one delinquent for the purposes of finding out the involvement of another. The present proceedings in which the respondents – delinquents have been found to be liable are more in the nature of a departmental proceeding which is distinct and different from a criminal trial.
7. Viewed in the aforesaid context and having regard to what has been stated above we interfere with the order of the High Court; set aside the same and allow these appeals.
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO(S). 1727-1730/2010
Union of India & Ors. Etc ___________________________ Appellant(s)
v.
Sabyasachi Jyoti & Ors. Etc ________________________ Respondent(s)
Date : 01-02-2018 These appeals were called on for hearing today.
(Before Ranjan Gogoi and R. Banumathi, JJ.)
For Appellant(s) Mr. Yashank Adhyaru, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ashok K. Srivastava, Adv.
Mr. Govind Narayan, Adv.
Mr. M.K. Maroria, Adv.
For Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, AOR (N/P)
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sukhjinder Singh, Adv.
Mr. Alok Gupta, AOR
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Mr. Arpit Rai, Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
Order
8. The appeals are allowed in terms of the signed order.
———
