Delhi High Court
Laxman Singh vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 30 July, 2012
Author: Badar Durrez Ahmed
Bench: Badar Durrez Ahmed, Siddharth Mridul
THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment delivered on: 30.07.2012
+ W.P.(C) 4761/2011
LAXMAN SINGH ... Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS ... Respondents
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner : Mr M.K.Bhardwaj.
For the Respondent : Ms Ferida Satarawala.
CORAM:-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE BADAR DURREZ AHMED
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
JUDGMENT
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J (ORAL)
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 31.05.2011 passed in O.A. No.3940/2010 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi. We may point out at the outset that the petitioner‟s said original application had been heard along with the O.A.No.3932/2010 filed by SI Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram and WP (C) No.4761/2011 Page 1 of 6 Constable Rajesh. By the common order dated 31.05.2011 both the original applications were dismissed. SI Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram and Constable Rajesh had accepted the decision of the Tribunal and had not filed any writ petition against the same. It is only Laxman Singh(the present petitioner) who has challenged the said order.
2. The facts are that a complaint had been received from the complainant Sameer Saini about him being harassed by the officials of Kirti Nagar Police Station to pay a substantial amount if he wanted to escape from criminal prosecution. When such a complaint was received, the respondents and the Anti Corruption Branch organized a vigilance trap on 26.04.2007. That was, however, aborted as the four delinquents, namely, SI Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram, Constable Rajesh and Laxman Singh(the petitioner herein), did not agree to go to the appointed place, that is, the house where the complainant was running a tuition centre, but the complainant was asked to come over to a builder‟s office in the neighborhood. On the instructions of Inspector Dharambir Singh of the Anti Corruption Branch, the complainant declined to go to the said builder‟s office.
WP (C) No.4761/2011 Page 2 of 6
3. A criminal case, however, was instituted against the above mentioned four delinquents on 19.07.2007. After investigation, a closure report was filed on 04.03.2008 on the ground of lack of evidence and the same was accepted by the Criminal Court on 11.07.2009.
4. However, the respondents had in the meantime initiated a departmental enquiry on 06.01.2009 on the basis of the said complaint. Thereafter a regular enquiry was conducted in which the above mentioned four delinquents participated. The Enquiry Officer found the charges to be proved. All the four delinquents filed representations against the findings of the Enquiry Officer. But, the Disciplinary Authority, after considering the representations, concurred with the findings of the Enquiry Officer though insofar as the present petitioner (Laxman Singh) is concerned, a lenient view was taken and a lighter penalty of forfeiture of one year‟s approved service for a period of one year was imposed.
5. All the four delinquents including the petitioner filed appeals which were rejected by the Appellate Authority by virtue of its order dated 03.11.2010. It is, thereafter, that the three delinquents(SI Shiv Dev Singh, Constable Vikram and Constable Rajesh) filed the said O.A. No.3932/2010 WP (C) No.4761/2011 Page 3 of 6 and the petitioner separately filed the O.A. No.3940/2010, which were dismissed by the common order dated 31.05.2011, which is impugned herein.
6. One of the points urged on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that once there was a closure report then on the same set of facts and circumstances there ought not to have been a departmental enquiry and, in any event, the petitioner ought not to have been held guilty of misconduct. Insofar as this submission is concerned, we may straightaway say that it has no basis because the standards of proof in a criminal case and in a departmental enquiry are entirely different and are well known. Furthermore, the mere fact that a person has been acquitted or not charged in a criminal case does not mean that a departmental enquiry cannot independently proceed against such person. Therefore, this submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is clearly untenable.
7. The second submission of the petitioner was that there was no evidence whatsoever to link the petitioner with the alleged incident. However, we find that the Tribunal has examined this aspect of the matter in great detail and has come to conclusion that this was not a case of „no WP (C) No.4761/2011 Page 4 of 6 evidence‟. It is well settled that once it is established that the case involves some evidence, the Tribunal and indeed the High Court would not enter into the domain of appreciation of evidence. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether this was or was not a case of „no evidence‟.
8. We find that although in the initial complaint the petitioner Constable Laxman Singh has not been named. However, when the complainant PW5 Sameer Saini was examined by the Enquiry Officer he has categorically referred to Laxman Singh, the petitioner herein. This is evident from the discussion in the enquiry report with regard to the deposition of Sameer Saini to the following effect:-
"...... After 45 minutes, HC Laxman had again called him and SI Sandhu had again talked to him and had abused him as to why money was not handed over. He promised them to deliver the money on 26.4.07/ on 26.4.07 HC Laxman, Ct. Vikram started calling him on telephone and used to hand over the phone to SI Sandhu who kept on pressing for the money....."
9. There is another reference in the Enquiry Officer‟s report with regard to the deposition of PW5 to the following effect:-
".......On the day and time SI Sandhu, HC Laxman had called him seven times and SI Sandhu had talked to him instructing him to bring the money to Lamba Properties......"WP (C) No.4761/2011 Page 5 of 6
10. It is also an admitted position that telephonic conversations between the delinquent officials and the complainant Sameer Saini were, inter alia, through the mobile phone of the petitioner herein. This fact has been confirmed from the Tata Indicom.
11. In the light of the above factual position, it cannot be said that this is a case of „no evidence‟. Once it is established that there is some evidence, it would not be open for the Tribunal or even for this court to enter into the field of appreciation of evidence or adequacy thereof.
12. Consequently, there is no merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The Tribunal has correctly dismissed the original application of the petitioner. This writ petition is also dismissed but, with no order as to costs.
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, J SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J JULY 30, 2012 mk WP (C) No.4761/2011 Page 6 of 6