Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ombir Singh vs Comm. Of Police on 15 January, 2026
1
Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023
in OA No. 1669/2011
Central Administrative Tribunal
Principal Bench, New Delhi
MA No. 1517/2023
in OA No. 1669/2011
Reserved on: 28.11.2025
Pronounced on: 15.01.2026
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J)
Hon'ble Mr. Rajinder Kashyap, Member (A)
Ombir Singh
S/o Shri Gopi Ram
Constable No. 1205/W/PIS No. 28030133
Delhi Police
R/o RZ-3B/20-A, Gali No. 24
Indra Park, Palam Colony
New Delhi-110045. ... Applicant
(By Advocate: Sh. Arun Bhardwaj, Sr. Adv. with Ms. Muskan
Jain and Ms. Prerna Rustogi)
VERSUS
1. The Commissioner of Police
Delhi Police Head Quarters
Jai Singh Road
New Delhi-110001
2. Shri Vivek Kishore
Joint Commissioner of Police (Northern Range)
Sector-5, Rohini, Rithala
New Delhi.
3. The Additional Deputy Commissioner of Police
(West District)
Police Station, Rajouri Garden
New Delhi-110018. ... Respondents
(By Advocate: Sh. R.S. Rana with Sh. Puneet Kumar, ASI, West
Distt., Pairvi Officer)
NEHA SHARMA
2026.01.19
16:44:40+05'30'
2
Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023
in OA No. 1669/2011
ORDER
Hon'ble Mr. R.N. Singh, Member (J) We have heard the learned counsels for the parties and with their assistance we have also perused the pleadings available on record. We have also perused the relevant original disciplinary inquiry record produced by the respondents.
2. By way of the captioned Miscellaneous Application (MA) being MA No. 1517/2023, the original applicant has prayed for the following reliefs:
"A. Initiate proceedings under Section 340 of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 against the Respondent No. 2 for commission of offense under Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code or appropriate Section of Law as the respondent No. 2 has admitted and accepted in correct English Translation of the statement of PW-1 before the Courts of Law which had the effect of misleading the Courts and miscarriage in the administration of justice to the applicant who was punished due to submission of that Altered/incorrect English Translation of the Statement of PW-I before the Hon'ble Courts.
B. Direct the respondents to take the remedial steps in order to modify their impugned action due to which the entire service career of the applicant ruin on the basis of incorrect English Translation of its Hindi Original, in the interest of justice.
C. Without prejudice to the generality of the prayer clause made in the preceding paras, the applicant may be compensated adequately in terms of the money or any other relief as may be deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents no. 2 to 4 have filed reply.
4. Undisputed facts are that vide order dated 25.09.2008, a departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicant while he was NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 3 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 working as Constable under the respondents. The charges framed against him in the said inquiry are as under:
"I Sudhir Singh Inspr. Law & Order P.S. Punjabi Bagh, charged you Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W, PIS No. 28030133 that while you were posted at police station Janak Puri on 02.07.08 were deployed on night patrolling duty in beat No. 10 on Govt. Motor Cycle vide DD No. 77-B dated 2.7.08 at 11.45 P.M. You completed your night patrolling duty vide DD No. 6B dated 03.07.08 at
5.10 AM. After completing your duty instead of parking the M/C in P.S. premises, you took the Govt. motor cycle with you at your residence without informing anyone HC Babu Lal No 676/W, PIS No. 288990759 posted at P.S. Janak Puri working as beat Head Constable in beat No. 12 in the P.S. On 03.07.08 morning HC Babu Lal searched for the Govt. motor cycle at police station as well as Janak Cinema Picket but could not find it parked anywhere. Then at about 08.00 AM to 8.30 AM, in the presence of HC Kishan Chand No. 61/W and Ct Mahender No. 1994/W, he phoned you and enquired about the whereabouts of the Govt. motor cycle being driven by you during night patrolling duty. Then on your reply that the M/C is with you at your residence he questioned your conduct as to why you have taken the Govt. motor cycle at your residence and he told you to bring the M/C at Janak Cinema police picket. Then after 15-20 minutes you came there in uniform at Janak cinema picket riding the Govt. motor cycle. Just immediately after reaching there, you blindly started beating, slapping and boxing HC Babu Lal who was standing outside the picket in uniform. At the same time, you threatened him with the words "I am having pistol with me and I will shoot you. How dare you phoned me and asked about the whereabout of Govt. Motor Cycle from me". SI Jagram No. D-2656 PIS No. 28730469, HC Krishan Chand No. 261/W PIS No. 28823002, HC Kailash Chand No. 399/W PIS No. 2891420 and Ct. Mohinder Kumar No. 1944/w PIS No. 28010207 all staff of P.S. Janak Puri rescued HC Babu Lal being thrashed by you. These policemen after saving HC Babu Lal from you somehow managed to take you and HC Babu Lal inside the police booth but inside the booth also you persisted to beat the HC. Above named policemen somehow managed to over and control you and rescue HC Babu Lal from your clutches.
You Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W PIS No. 28030133, thrashed HC Babu Lal No. 676/W PIS No. 28890759 in full public view at Janak Cinema Police booth, threatened to shoot him when he pointed out your mistake and misconduct and asked you on phone to bring the govt. motor cycle taken by you after finishing your official duty. You were in police uniform while beating your superior rank official in open when he (HC Babu NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 4 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 Lal) was also in police uniform and performing his official duty there. You intentionally beat HC Babu Lal with a sound planning and motive and it was not an action done in a fit of anger. It is because you had got sufficient time about 10-15 minutes during your travelling from your residence till coming to Janak Cinema Picket. During this period of 10-15 minutes good sense might definitely have prevailed upon you. This shows that you assaulted and beat him after proper planning and with intention of teaching him a lesson for pointing out your mistake. You behaved violently & committed serious breach of discipline unbecoming of any member of uniformed police force. You even did not thought of the fact that your act of beating your superior rank police personnel in the public will be maligning the image of force. You (Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W PIS 28030133) on the above act of grave misconduct on your part, amounts to gross indiscipline, negligence, carelessness, dereliction in the discharge of your official duties and shows your criminal tendency to browbeat, assault and violently attacking your senior policemen with an ulterior motive which render your liable to be punishable under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980."
5. The Inquiry Officer returned his findings and concluded the charges partly proved. The conclusion of the Inquiry Officer is as under:
"I have gone through the statement of PWs, Statement of DWs, Document placed on file, and defence statement submitted by Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W and came to the conclusion that there is no documentary evidence of taking of Govt. vehicle in question at the residence by Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W. As such taking of Govt. vehicle to his residence could not be proved during the DE proceedings. Some PWs have also not supported the proper version which support the beating of HC Babulal by Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W. PWs have stated that there were hot talks between HC Babulal & Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W on the issue of not found the motor cycle at the time of patrolling by HC Babulal. Keeping in view of the evidence placed on file it is clear that both the police personnel were in uniform and they were have keep mind that they are the member of Disciplinary force and Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W should have applied his mind that how talks with his superior rank being a member of disciplinary force. As such charge prepared against Ct. Ombir Singh No. 1205/W proved partly only misbehaved with his superior rank at a public place but taking of Govt. Motor cycle & brutally beating of HC NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 5 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 Babulal could not be proved due to the non availability of evidence."
6. The Tribunal vide a detailed order held the OA No. 1669/2011 to be bereft of any merit and dismissed the same vide order/judgment dated 22.11.2011. The applicant challenged the said order dated 22.11.2011 before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(C) No. 6233/2012 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide its order dated 17.04.2013 and remanded the matter to the Tribunal. The OA was restored in the Tribunal for adjudication as per the orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. The OA was heard again and vide its order dated 03.09.2014, this Tribunal dismissed the OA. The Original Applicant approached this Tribunal seeking review of the order/judgment dated 03.09.2014 vide Review Application No. 217/2014 which was dismissed vide order dated 12.07.2016. Aggrieved by the order dated 03.09.2014 passed by this Tribunal in the captioned OA, the original applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Writ Petition (C) No. 3691/2017 which was disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide order/judgment dated 18.01.2019 by modifying the punishment as recorded in the said order dated 18.01.2019. Aggrieved by the order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi under reference, the applicant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi by way of Review Petition No. 82/2019 and the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi finding no merit in the Review Petition dismissed the same vide order dated 25.02.2019. The Original Applicant thereafter approached the NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 6 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 Hon'ble Apex Court by way of SLP (C) No(s). 11604-11605/2019 to challenge the final order/judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 18.01.2019 in WP(C) No. 3691/2017 and order dated 25.02.2019 in Review Petition No. 82/2019 under reference. Such SLP was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 31.07.2019.
7. It is admitted case of the applicant that on the same issue, the applicant had approached the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi vide WP(CRL) 460/2021 which was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to challenge the impugned orders before appropriate forums vide order dated 28.07.2021 (MA-16) which reads as under:
"1. The hearing has been conducted through Video Conferencing.
2. The learned counsel appearing for petitioner seeks to withdraw the petition with liberty to challenge the impugned orders before appropriate forums. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as withdrawn with aforesaid liberty. Pending application, if any, also stands disposed of."
8. Thereafter, the petitioner/applicant approached this Tribunal vide MA No. 2637/2021 seeking initiation of proceedings under Section 340 of CrPC, 1973 for commission of offence under Section 195 of IPC for submitting altered English translation of PW-1 before the Court of law and also for direction to the respondents to follow the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi dated 18.01.2019 in letter and spirit. Such MA was got dismissed as withdrawn with liberty in accordance with law vide order dated 26.08.2022. The applicant filed another MA being MA No. 3745/2022 which was also NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 7 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 got dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 16.12.2022 with liberty to him as already accorded to him in order dated 26.08.2022 in MA No. 2637/2021. Thereafter, the applicant has filed the present MA being MA No. 1517/2023.
9. It is the case of the applicant that statement of PW-1 in the departmental inquiry was recorded in Hindi and such statement in Hindi reads as under:
"Maine vaa picket staff ne jo mera sath anti snatching duty 6 A.M. to 9 A.M. per they ne milkar picket ke andar kar diya vaa dono ko alag alag kar diya"
This has been translated into English as under:-
"He and other picket staff put on anti-snatching duty separated them."
10. In support of the applicant's claim in the present MA, it is contended on behalf of the applicant that crucial fact i.e. timing of duty of PW-1 i.e Head Constable Kailash Chand from 6 AM to 9 AM was omitted by the Inquiry Officer from the English translation and that altered the English translated statement of PW-1 Head Constable Kailash Chand and by that altered English translated statement of PW- 1, the Inquiry Officer has prejudiced the proceedings of departmental inquiry which culminated against the applicant. It is reiterated on behalf of the applicant that had the Inquiry Officer not done English translation of the statement of PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand which he made in Hindi, wrongly, the applicant would not have been punished by the Disciplinary Authority.
NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 8 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011
11. The omission by the Inquiry Officer in mentioning the timing of the alleged incident, i.e. 6 AM to 9 AM led to passing of the disciplinary order against the applicant being upheld by the Appellate Authority and the judicial fora and also in the findings of the Inquiry Officer.
12. It is specifically pleaded that as the Inquiry Officer, Inspector Sudhir Singh has altered the English translation of the statement of PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand in evidence, he is liable to be proceeded under Section 340 of the CrPC for commission of offence under Section 195 of IPC. It is further submitted that the authorities under the respondents are also liable for the same offence who had not checked the fabrication of the Inquiry Officer and imposed a major penalty upon the applicant. It is further argued on behalf of the applicant that on account of omission and commission of the respondents, the applicant has suffered for more than thirteen years and is likely to suffer further.
13. In opposition to the claim of the applicant, the respondents have filed reply. Besides giving a detailed background of the litigation by the parties, precisely noted hereinabove, the respondents have asserted that the issue regarding not mentioning of time and place of duty of PW-1 is bereft of any merit inasmuch as the incident occurred at that place and the staff was present and their submissions were recorded during the inquiry as well as the departmental inquiry proceedings. It is further asserted by the respondents that the Hon'ble High Court of NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 9 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 Delhi while remanding the matter before this Tribunal vide order/judgment dated 17.04.2013 in WP(C) No. 6233/2012 noted in paragraph 2 and 3 of such order as under:
"2. Without commenting upon the evidence led, suffice would it be to state that of the 8 witnesses examined at the enquiry, only 2 HC Kailash Chand, PW-1 and the stated police HC who was assaulted by the petitioner, HC Babu Lal, PW-4 deposed about the origin of the incident.
3. The other persons who were present at the spot namely Constable Mahender PW-3, SI Jagram PW-7 and HC Kishan Chand PW-6, have deposed facts after the fight between the petitioner and HC Babu Lal had flared up, in that, a noise attracted the three to the spot."
14. It is further contended that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi while disposing of the WP(C) No. 3691/2017 vide order/judgment dated 18.01.2019 had examined the evidence particularly of PW-1 who was an eye witness to the incident and from the evidence of PW- 1, it has been noted by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that there was an incident involving the petitioner (applicant herein) and Head Constable Babu Lal and on being chided by the Head Constable Babu Lal, the applicant had physically assaulted Head Constable Babu Lal.
15. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels for the parties.
16. Before we turn to the conspectus of the present MA, we may consider the provision of (i) the Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 which reads as under:
"340. Procedure in cases mentioned in section 195.-(1) When, upon an application made to it in this behalf or otherwise, any Court is of opinion that it is expedient in NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 10 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 the interests of Justice that an inquiry should be made into any offence referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 195, which appears to have been committed in or in relation to a proceeding, in that Court or, as the case may be, in respect of a document produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in that Court, such Court may, after such preliminary inquiry, if any, as it thinks necessary,-
(a) record a finding to that effect;
(b) make a complaint thereof in writing;
(c) sent it to a Magistrate of the first class having jurisdiction;
(d) take sufficient security for the appearance of the accused before such Magistrate, or if the alleged offence is non-bailable and the Court thinks it necessary so to do, send the accused in custody to such Magistrate and
(e) bind over any person to appear and give evidence before such Magistrate.
(2) The power conferred on a Court by sub-section (1) in respect of an offence may, in any case where that Court has neither made a complaint under sub-section (1) in respect of that offence nor rejected an application for the making of such complaint, be exercised by the Court to which such former Court is subordinate within the meaning of sub- section (4) of section 195.
(3) A complaint made under this section shall be signed,-
(a) where the Court making the complaint is a High Court, by such officer of the Court as the Court may appoint;
(b) in any other case, by the presiding officer of the Court or by such officer of the Court as the Court may authorise in writing in this behalf.
(4) In this section, "Court" has the same meaning as in section 195."
(ii) Section 195 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860) reads as under:
"195. Giving or fabricating false evidence with intent to procure conviction of offence punishable with imprisonment for life or imprisonment.-Whoever gives or fabricates false evidence intending thereby to cause, or knowing it to be likely that he will thereby cause, any person to be convicted of an offence which by the law for the time being in force in India is not capital, but punishable with imprisonment for life, or imprisonment for a term of seven years or upwards, shall be punished as NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 11 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 a person convicted of that offence would be liable to be punished.
Illustration A gives false evidence before a Court of Justice, intending thereby to cause Z to be convicted of a dacoity. The punishment of dacoity is imprisonment for life, or rigorous imprisonment for a term which may extend to ten years, with or without fine. A, therefore, is liable to imprisonment for life or imprisonment, with or without fine."
17. 'Fabricating' has been defined in the Judicial Dictionary by K. J. Aiyar (17th Eidtion) as under:
"Fabricating. False Evidence. [See False evidence; s 192, Indian Penal Code 1860] 17.1. Further, 'Fabrication' has been defined as under:
"Fabrication. The term refers to fabrication of false evidence. [Empress of India v. Mula 2 All 105]. A person commits the offences, if he makes a document, which though may not contain any false statement in express terms, yet contains false recitals, which imply such false statements."
17.2. Section 192 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 reads as under:
"192. Fabricating false evidence.-Whoever causes any circumstance to exist or makes any false entry in any book or record, or electronic record or makes any document or electronic record containing a false statement, intending that such circumstance, false entry or false statement may appear in evidence in a judicial proceeding, or in a proceeding taken by law before a public servant as such, or before an arbitrator, and that such circumstance, false entry or false statement, so appearing in evidence, may cause any person who in such proceeding is to form an opinion upon the evidence, to entertain an erroneous opinion touching any point material to the result of such proceeding is said "to fabricate false evidence".
Illustrations
(a) A puts jewels into a box belonging to Z, with the intention that they may be found in that box, and that this circumstance may cause Z to be convicted of theft. A has fabricated false evidence.
NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 12 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011
(b) A makes a false entry in his shop-book for the purpose of using it as corroborative evidence in a Court of Justice. A has fabricated false evidence.
(c) A, with the intention of causing Z to be convicted of a criminal conspiracy, writes a letter in imitation of Z's handwriting, purporting to be addressed to an accomplice in such criminal conspiracy, and puts the letter in a place which he knows that the officers of the police are likely to search. A has fabricated false evidence."
18. As apparent from the facts of the present MA, the Inquiry Officer against whom the allegations are primarily made was not leading any evidence before this Tribunal rather he was only inquiring into the allegations levelled against the applicant in the disciplinary proceedings for and on behalf of the disciplinary authority.
19. From the assertions made in the MA, it is apparent that primarily the applicant has alleged commission of offence under Section 195 of the IPC against the Inquiry Officer, Inspector Sudhir Singh. However, such Inspector Sudhir Singh has not been impleaded as one of the respondents.
20. It is also not in dispute that when the Inquiry Officer submits its report, the Disciplinary Authority considers not only report of Inquiry Officer, and in fact, the Disciplinary Authority considers all the relevant documents including the statements of witnesses available on record for coming to a conclusion to support the report of the Inquiry Officer and/or to dissent with the same. It is not the case of the applicant that such process was not followed by the Disciplinary Authority in the present case. The applicant had participated in the disciplinary inquiry is not in dispute, furthermore evident from the NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 13 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 fact that the defence evidence was also led in the inquiry and the same has been considered by the Inquiry Officer. In this view of the matter, it can conveniently be inferred that the applicant has been aware of the statements given by the prosecution witnesses including PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand and he could have agitated the allegation of alteration in the English translation made by the Inquiry Officer in respect of the statement of PW-1 and/or any other witnesses before the Disciplinary Authority, Appellate Authority and/or the Tribunal or higher forums in the relevant proceedings. However, admittedly, this is not the case. Moreover, from the order dated 17.04.2013 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 6233/2012, reproduced hereinabove, it is apparent that the Hon'ble High Court has looked into the statements of various PWs including PW-1. Furthermore, from the order dated 18.01.2019 of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in WP(C) No. 3691/2017 (supra), it is apparent that the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had heard the learned counsels for the parties and had also examined the evidence particularly of PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand. Paragraph 4 of such order/judgment is reproduced as under:
"4. We have heard learned counsels and examined the evidence particularly of PW-1, who was an eye witness to the incident. In our order dated 25.05.2017, we have made observations in relation to the evidence of PW-1. From the evidence of PW-1, it is evident that there was an incident involving the petitioner and Head Constable Babu Lal, and on being chided by Head Constable Babu Lal, the petitioner had physically assaulted Head Constable Babu Lal. Thus, the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer against the petitioner that he had misbehaved with his superior, is substantiated, and is not without any basis."
NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 14 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011
21. It is also admitted case that the original record(s) was summoned and perused by this Tribunal before passing order/judgment and original statement(s) of witnesses including that of the PW, consists of the original disciplinary enquiry records(s). In the present MA, the applicant has attempted to persuade this Tribunal to peruse the evidence which is not ordinarily expected from the Tribunal even in the original proceeding(s).
22. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhima Razu Prasad vs. State represented by Deputy Superintendent of Police CBI/SPE/ACU-II reported in (2021) 19 SCC 25 has considered the definition of judicial proceeding in paragraph 44 of the judgment as under:
"44. Section 2(i) CrPC defines "judicial proceeding" as including any proceeding in the course of which evidence is or may be legally taken by oath. The investigation under the PC Act was admittedly a stage of a judicial proceeding by virtue of Explanation 2 to Section 193 IPC. However, neither was the fabricated evidence in the present case given on oath before the investigating officer, nor is the investigating authority under the PA Act deemed to be a "court" for the purpose of Section 195(1)(b) CrPC. Hence, the decisions in Lalji Haridas and Chandrapal Singh will have no applicability to the present case. Thus, it can be concluded that the investigation conducted by the respondent under the PC Act cannot be equated with a proceeding in a court of law under Section 195(1)(b)(i) CrPC, though it is deemed to be a stage of a judicial proceeding under Section 193 IPC."
22.1. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Bhima Razu Prasad (supra) has held in paragraph 27 as under:
"27. However, where a person fabricates false evidence for the purpose of misleading the investigating officer, this may not have any direct nexus with the subsequent court proceedings. There is an indirect nexus inasmuch as if the investigating agency does not suspect any wrongdoing, NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 15 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 and the Court commits the case for trial, the evidence will be produced for the Court's perusal and impact the judicial decision-making process. However, it may be equally possible that even if the fabricated evidence appears sufficiently convincing, the investigating agency may drop proceedings against the accused and divert its time and resources elsewhere. Therefore, the offence may never reach the stage of court proceedings. Further, if it subsequently comes to light that the evidence was falsely adduced, it will be the investigating agency which will suffer loss of face and be forced to conduct a fresh investigation. Hence, though the offence is one which affects the administration of justice, it is the investigating agency, and not the Court, which is the aggrieved party in such circumstance."
23. Thus, in the light of the facts of the present case and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Bhima Razu Prasad (supra), the findings returned by the Inquiry Officer cannot be construed as an evidence and/or fabrication of evidence before this Tribunal and/or a court proceeding.
24. From what has been recorded hereinabove, particularly in paragraph 20, it is evident that the Inquiry Officer was not likely to gain anything by not correctly translating the statement of PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand inasmuch as omitting to indicate the time i.e. 6:00 AM to 9:00 AM indicated in his original statement. Considering the law laid down in catena of cases including in the case of S.P. Kohli vs High Court of Punjab and Haryana reported in AIR 1978 SC 1753, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in Tasleema versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Ors. reported in ILR (2009) VI DELHI 486 has held that prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by Courts only in those cases where it appears to be NEHA SHARMA 2026.01.19 16:44:40+05'30' 16 Court-2 MA No. 1517/2023 in OA No. 1669/2011 deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely.
25. We may further record that it is not the case of the applicant that the inquiry officer deliberately omitted to mention the time indicated by the PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand in his statement while considering his statement in his report and translating such statement. Moreover, from the pleadings before us as well, we do not find anything which was to be gained by the said Inquiry Officer who is not even a party in the present MA or the respondents in the MA. The respondents while submitting the original disciplinary inquiry records for perusal of the Tribunal have not only submitted the report tendered by the Inquiry Officer but the entire disciplinary enquiry file which includes even the original statement of PW-1, Head Constable Kailash Chand.
26. In view of the aforesaid facts and discussion, we find the present MA bereft of any merit. Accordingly, the same deserves to be dismissed and we order accordingly.
27. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
(Rajinder Kashyap) (R.N. Singh)
Member (A) Member (J)
/NS/
NEHA SHARMA
2026.01.19
16:44:40+05'30'