Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Constable Vijay Pal S/O Jagmool Singh vs Government Of Nct Of Delhi Through ... on 24 January, 2008
ORDER
V.K. Bali, J. (Chairman)
1. Constable Vijay Pal, the applicant herein, being aggrieved by the order dated 23.3.2005 passed by the disciplinary authority imposing penalty of forfeiture of two years' approved service temporarily, as also order dated 24.5.2006 vide which the appeal filed by him against the order aforesaid was rejected, has filed the present Original Application under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985.
2. Brief facts giving rise to the present Application reveal that a departmental enquiry was initiated against the applicant on the charge of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification. The enquiry officer after recording statements of witnesses examined on behalf of the department framed the following charge against the applicant:
I, O.D.Yadav, Inspr. D.E. Cell do hereby charge you Ct. Vijay Pal No. 780/T (PIS No. 28981968) that while posted in Defence Colony, Traffic Circle, you were deputed on crane duty, private crane No. DL-1LD-6872 on 22-5-2004. On that day you Const. Vijay Pal No. 780/T allegedly towed one Indica Car bearing Registration No. DL-3C-U-3426, parked along the road left side opposite Mahindra Bhasin Motors, South Extension, Part-I, main road, at about 3-45 PM. You held negotiations with the owner of car No. DL-3C-U-3426, Sardar Trilochan Singh S/O Shri Amar Singh R/O 1848, Oterm Line, Kingsway Camp, Delhi-9. You Ct. vijay Pal No. 780/T received a sum of Rs. 100/- from the owner of Car-Sardar Trilochan Singh and after accepting money un-towed car No. DL-3C-U-3426. The PRG team comprising of Inspr. Hira Lal TI/PRG, ASI Ravinder Vats, Ct. Sanjeev Kumar No. 2961/T headed by Inspr. Hira Lal, conducting surveillance, watching the transactions, stopped you Ct. Vijay Pal. The owner of the car present there confirmed to have paid Rs. 100/- to you Ct. Vijay Pal for release of car. On search of crane Register, on the disclosure of owner of the car one hundred rupee note given by the car owner to you Ct. vijay Pal was recovered by Inspr. Hira Lal TI/PRG and was taken into possession vide seizure memo after duly signed by the owner of the car and PRG Team.
The above act on the part of you Ct. Vijay Pal No. 780/T (PIS No. 28981968) for indulgence in corrupt practice during your official duty amounts to grave misconduct, malafide, negligence and dereliction in discharge of your official duties which renders you liable for punishment under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules-1980.
The applicant was then given opportunity to lead evidence in defence. The enquiry officer, after evaluating the entire evidence led by the department and the applicant, came to the conclusion that the charge against the applicant stood proved.
3. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, respondents have filed counter affidavit and contested the cause of the applicant.
4. Shri Sachin Chauhan, learned Counsel representing the applicant, in support of this Application has raised only two-fold contentions. It is first urged by him that Sardar Trilochan Singh, the star prosecution witness, who, as per the charge framed against the applicant, had paid an amount of Rs. 100/- to the applicant on his demand, had not supported the case of the department at all, and that he rather stated that when two plain-clothes persons came and sat in his car and told that they were from traffic vigilance and enquired from him as to whether the crane staff had demanded/obtained money from him, he denied the version and told that Ct. Vijay Pal (applicant) had neither demanded nor obtained money from him. He further stated that Inspector Hira Lal had asked him to sign two blank papers and as he was in a hurry, he signed the blank papers. He further stated that the papers shown and read over to him were absolutely incorrect. Once, the person said to have paid money on demand of the applicant had not supported the case of the department, the finding of guilt recorded against the applicant cannot possibly be sustained, contends the learned Counsel.
5. The learned Counsel, as his second and last contention, also contends that the disciplinary authority relied upon the statement made by Sardar Trilochan Singh before the police, which was wholly impermissible in view of provisions contained in Sub-rule (iii) of rule 16 of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
6. Shri Ajesh Luthra, learned Counsel representing the respondents, joins issues on both the points referred to above and defends the orders passed by the disciplinary and appellate authorities.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel representing the parties and with their assistance examined the records of the case.
8. During the course of enquiry the department examined Const. Mukesh Kumar as PW-1, who proved that on 22.5.2004 the applicant was on crane duty at private crane No. DL-1LD-6872, and that he was detailed for crane duty in place of Const. Satbir Singh due to his illness. That the applicant was on crane duty at the relevant time is also not in dispute. SI Prem Singh examined as PW-2, also stated that the applicant was deployed on crane. Const. Sanjeev Kumar examined as PW-3, stated that on 22.5.2004 he was posted in PRG-Traffic and on that day he along with Inspr. Hira Lal and ASI Ravinder Vats went to DFC for surveillance where two private cranes were available in the pit and kept surveillance on crane No. DL-1LD-6872 which reached near Mahinder Bhasin in South Extension and towed one Indica car No. DL-3CU-3426. In the meantime, one Sardar Trilochan Singh came running from opposite side/across the road and told that this was his car and had some discussion with the applicant who was on crane duty, and gave some money. He along with others was watching the incident from a private car. They stopped the crane and the applicant told Inspr. Hira Lal that he had not taken any money for untowing the Indica car. On enquiry, Sardar Trilochan Singh told Inspr. Hira Lal that the applicant had kept the one hundred-rupee note in the crane register. Inspr. Hira Lal recovered the hundred-rupee note from the crane register and prepared recovery memo which bore signatures of Trilochan Singh and ASI Ravinder Vats. The Inspector then recorded statement of SI/ZO Prem Singh in the pit. Const. Jai Prakash who was examined as PW-4, produced original register/seizure memo dated 22.5.2004 and one sealed envelope having three MI seals, with one letter regarding surveillance on 22.5.2004 in the area of Defence Colony. He also produced Circle letter dated 25.5.2004 addressed to LO/RND/Traffic received on 26.5.2004, stated to be containing one hundred-rupee note recovered from the applicant. He opened the sealed envelope in the presence of the applicant and recovered one hundred-rupee note, which after signing was handed over to him. It is no doubt true that PW-5 Sardar Trilochan Singh did not support the case of the department even though, he admitted his presence at the scene of occurrence and conversation with the vigilance staff. The statements made by Inspr. Hira Lal examined as PW-6 and ASI Ravinder Vats examined as PW-7 are similar as made by Const. Sanjeev Kumar, PW-3.
9. What transpires from the evidence led during the course of enquiry is that Const. Sanjeev Kumar PW-3, Inspr. Hira Lal PW-6, and ASI Ravinder Vats PW-7 had fully supported the case of the department. There is no occasion whatsoever to disbelieve the statement of police officials who had themselves seen passing of money to the applicant by Sardar Trilochan Singh, PW-5. In face of the overwhelming evidence which is reliable, the statement made by Trilochan Singh during the course of enquiry has to be disbelieved. It is pertinent to mention here that none of the PWs supporting the prosecution case had any axe to grind nor were they prejudicial to the applicant. In the facts as mentioned, the mere fact that Trilochan Singh had not supported the case of the prosecution would be of no solace to the applicant.
10. Insofar as the second contention of the learned Counsel as noted above is concerned, the same too has no substance whatsoever. It may be true that the disciplinary authority has mentioned in the impugned order that perusal of the seizure memo as well as the earlier statement of PW-5 does not indicate that the PRG team obtained his signatures on blank papers, and that may, to some extent, show that reliance has been placed upon statement of PW-5 recorded at the time of the incident, but in our considered view, even if the same is excluded from the array of consideration of evidence, there would be yet overwhelming evidence to prove the guilt of the applicant.
11. Finding no merit in this Application, we dismiss the same, leaving, however, the parties to bear their own costs.