Central Administrative Tribunal - Delhi
Ct. Surinder Singh vs Commissioner Of Police on 6 January, 2010
CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL PRINCIPAL BENCH : NEW DELHI O.A. NO. 174/2008 with OAs 309/2008, 2769/2008, 2770/2008 & 2387/2007 New Delhi, this the 06th day of January,2010 CORAM: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE M. RAMACHANDRAN, V.C.(J) HONBLE DR. VEENA CHHOTRAY, MEMBER (A) OA 174/2008: Ct. Surinder Singh, 2627, 3rd Bn DAP, Delhi S/o Shri Prem Singh, R/o 424, Sector 23, Sonipat, Haryana Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Arun Bhardwaj) Versus 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi-2 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi-2 3. Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Distt. Parliament street, New Delhi 4. Enquiry Officer, Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi 2 .Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ram Kawar) OA 307/2008: Head Ct. Munshi Lal, 2271, 3rd Bn DAP, Delhi S/o Shri Ram Bharose, R/o GPO Dadanpur, The Todadhim, Distt: Karoli, Rajasthan .Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Arun Bhardwaj) versus 1. Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi-2 2. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi-2 3. Addl Dy. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Distt. Parliament street, New Delhi 4. Enquiry Officer, Through Commissioner of Police, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi 2 .Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ram Kawar) OA 2769/2008: Constable Banwari Lal, No.766/ND (PIS No.28890768) S/o Shri Ram Sahai Meena, R/o Village & PO: Raine, Distt. Alwar, Rajasthan Applicants (By Advocate: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police HQrs, New Delhi 3. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi range, New Delhi 4. Shri Ravinder Kumar, Inquiry Officer, Addl. SHO, Tughlak Road, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri Ram Kawar) OA 2770/2008: Constable Ram Singhasan, No.1303 (PIS No.2896229) S/o Shri Ram Chander Prasad, R/o Village and PO Ashapadari, Distt. Buxar, Bihar .Applicant (By Advocate: Mrs. Avnish Ahlawat) Versus 1. Union of India, Through Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi 2. Govt. of NCT of Delhi, Through Commissioner of Police, Police HQrs, New Delhi 3. Joint Commissioner of Police, New Delhi range, New Delhi 4. Shri Ravinder Kumar, Inquiry Officer, Addl. SHO, Tughlak Road, New Delhi Respondents (By Advocate: Shri R.N. Singh) OA 2387/2007: Ex. Constable Shrimant, PIS No.28950278 R/o B-22, Police Colony, Pitam Pura, New delhi-34 .Applicant (By Advocate: Shri Anil Singal) Versus 1. Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through Commissioner of Police, Police Head Quarters, IP Estate, New Delhi 2. Jt. Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Range, PHQ, IP Estate, New Delhi 3. D.C.P. (New Delhi Distt.), PS Parliament Street, New Delhi .Respondents (By Advocate:Ms. Sumedha Sharma) O R D E R By Dr. Veena Chhotray, Member (A):
As all these five OAs have originated out of a common incident and a joint inquiry with identical/closely related facts, they are being disposed by this common order. The lead case is being taken as OA 174/2008 (Surinder Singh vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors) with references therefrom unless otherwise specified.
The OA No. 174/2008 (Ct. Surinder Singh Vs. Commissioner of Police & Ors.), OA No. 309/2008 (Head Ct. Munshi Lal vs Commissioner of Police & Ors) would be defended by the learned counsel Shri Arun Bhardwaj; OA No.2769/2008 (Shri Banwari Lal vs. UOI & Ors), OA No.2770/2008 (Shri Ram Singhasan vs UOI & Ors) would be defended by the learned counsel Ms. Avnish Ahlawat and OA 2387/2007 (Shrimant vs. GNCTD & Ors) would be defended by the learned Counsel Shri Anil Singal. On behalf of the respondents, the learned counsels Shri Ram Kanwar would appear in OAs 174/2008, 309/2008 and 2769/2008; and the learned counsels Shri R.N. Singh and Ms. Sumedha Sharma would appear for the respondents respectively in OA 2770/2009 and 2387/2007.
We have heard at length the learned counsels appearing on both sides and also carefully perused the material on record.
2. The charge in question pertained to an incident in the night on 1-2.1.2005 when as a night patrolling party, the five delinquents were proceeded against in a joint enquiry for exhorting money from the complainants. As per the facts emerging before us, subsequently after a prompt action by the senior officials, this money was returned to the complainants. On the charge being proved in the inquiry, the Disciplinary Authority (DA) vide its order dated 6.10.2006 awarded punishment of forfeiture of 10 years approved service permanently entailing reduction in the pay in all the four Constables i.e. Ct. Surinder Singh, Ct. Ram Singhasan, Ct. Banwari Lal and Ct. Srimant. Since Head Constable Munshi Lal had not completed 10 years service in the rank of Head Constable, the punishment of reduction in rank from Head Constable to Constable for a period of 10 years was awarded to him with immediate effect. Besides, the suspension period of all of them was treated as not spent on duty (Annexure A/2).
The aforesaid penalty was enhanced after a show cause notice by the Appellate Authority (AA) to that of dismissal of all the five delinquents with the treatment of the suspension period being allowed to remain as before. The relevant order dated 23.11.2007 has been annexed as Annexure A/1 with the OA.
By way of relief, the OAs seek the following reliefs:-
1. Impugned orders passed by Appellate Authority dt 23.11.07 and passed by Disciplinary Authority dt 6.10.06 and Show Cause Notice Dt 6.9.07 may kindly be quashed and set aside being illegal and applicants may be reinstated.
Enquiry Officers findings dt 14.5.05 be quashed and set aside.
Applicants be granted all consequential benefits.
Period of suspension be treated as spent on duty for all purposes.
Costs of the OA be also awarded to the applicant.
Any other relief be also granted to the applicant.
3. Pending an inquiry, all the five delinquents were placed under suspension for the alleged misconduct vide the order dated 10.1.2005 (Annexure A/6). This was followed by an order dated 22.2.2005 to deal with the allegations departmentally under the provisions of the Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 (Annexure A/5) with the summary of allegations dated 2.3.2005 (Annexure A/7). The charge was framed by the Inquiry Officer (IO) after examination of the prosecution witnesses with the opportunity to the charged officials to cross examine, and after approval of the Disciplinary Authority. This was served on the delinquents on 19.5.2005. The charge ran as under:
I, Inspector Ravinder Kumar, Enquiry Officer, charge you HC Munshi Lal No.408/ND CONST. Surender Singh No.590/ND, CONST. Ram Singhasan No.1303/ND, CONST. Shrimant No.1296/ND and CONST. Banwari Lal No.766/ND that while posted at P.S. Connaught Place, you were detailed for night patrolling duty on the night intervening 01/02.01.2005. During your patrolling duty you stopped a motorcycle No.UP-14-U-8187 at outer circle, Connaught Place near Minto Road when the riders Mr. Varun Gupta were talking to a TSR to enquire about way to I.T.O. The Policemen made Mr. Varun Gupta to sit in the TSR with a Constable in which a girl was already sitting. Another Constable took the motorcycle and made Mr. Bhupinder Tiwari to sit on the pillion seat. After driving for about half an hour, you stopped at dark area and threatened put the motorcyclist in jail. Later the remaining three policemen also reached there and demanded all the money they have. The Policemen then took Rs.8000/- from Mr. Varun Gupta and Rs.6000/- from Mr. Bhupinder Tiwari. The above act on the part of you HC Munshi Lal No.408/ND, CONST. Surender Singh No 590/ND, CONST. Ramsinghasan No.1303/ND, CONST. Shrimant No.1296/ND and CONST. Banwari Lal No.766/ND. amounts gross misconduct, indiscipline and dereliction in the discharge of your official duties which render your liable for punishment under the provision of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal rules:-1980)
4. Subsequently, while the disciplinary proceedings continued, all the delinquents were reinstated in service i.e. Const. Shrimant on 10.3.2005 and the others on 4.6.2005. After conducting a regular inquiry in which all the five delinquents participated and had been assisted by the defence assistant; The I.O. vide his report dated 14.5.2005 held the charge as substantiated against all the delinquents (Annexure A/3). Tentatively agreeing with the IOs findings and considering the written representations besides giving oral hearings (except to Ct. Shrimant due to an accident), the DA vide the order dated 6.10.2006 imposed the aforesaid penalty of 10 years of forfeiture of service in case all the four Constables and reduction in rank in the case of H.C. Munshi Lal (Annexure A/2).
While considering the appeal, the Appellate Authority tentatively took the view about the penalty not being proportionate to the gravity of misconduct. After giving a Show Cause Notice (Annexure A/4) and again according separate oral hearing to the delinquents, the aforesaid penalty was enhanced to that of dismissal in all the five cases. This has occasioned the present OAs.
5. The Inquiry Report mentions that in their separate statements of defence, the charged officials had taken many common pleas. In course of oral submissions, however, while there would be some common points; the learned defence counsels would also at the same time be at pains to distinguish the facts of particular applicant and submit that all of them should not be clubbed together.
6.1 The foremost point in the defence averments would be about the charge in this case being vague inasmuch as it did not specify which specific alleged misconduct was attributable to which of the five delinquents. The learned counsel, Shri Arun Bhardwaj would emphasize that neither from the charge nor after the enquiry report could it be clear as to exactly which Constable had gone and sat in the TSR with the victim Varun Gupta and who had sat on the motorcycle with the other complainant, Bhupender Tiwari. The learned counsel, Shri Arun Bhardwaj would also argue that the number of the auto rickshaw had not been mentioned, nor the driver and the girl alleged to be sitting there made witnesses by the prosecution to prove the charge.
6.2 The learned counsel Shri Anil Singhal would also seek to drive home the contention that the charge in this case was vague and that by itself would suffice to vitiate the inquiry in question and the consequent penalties. In support the learned counsel would also rely upon a number of cases decided by the Supreme Court and the Delhi High Court to establish that in the present case the alleged vagueness of the charge constituted a serious infirmity. The following judicial rulings would be brought to our notice by the learned counsel Shri Singhal:-
(a) State of Uttar Pradesh Vs. Mohd. Sharif, (1982) 2 SCC 376
(b) Transport Commissioner, Madras-5 Vs. A.Radha Krishna Moorthy, (1995) 1 SCC 332
(c) Union of India Vs. Cont. Paramvir, WP (C) No. 8052/2003 and CM No. 13381/2003
(d) D.B. Rao & Ors. Vs. A.P. State Road Transport Corporation Hyderabad & Anr., 2006 (7) SLR 111
(e) Govt. of A.P. & Ors.Vs. A.Venkata Raidu, (2007) 1 SCC 338
(f) Union of India & Ors. Vs. Gyan Chand Chattar, 2009 (3) SC 421 6.3 While dealing with this issue, the respondents have taken the stand that since the charge in question was of committing misconduct jointly, the attribution of the specific part of misconduct to specific co-delinquents did not matter. In any case, even from a cursory perusal of the charge, it can be seen that the specifics of time, date and place of occurrence, the motorcycle number and demand and taking of money are very much there.
6.4 In this case as the charge essentially was by a group of police men constituting a night patrolling party on the night of 1-2 January 2005 jointly indulging in the misconduct of extorting money from the complainants; the specific attributability of individual sequences of the misconduct may not be the determining material factors. In any case as the basic principle behind the charge being specific is to enable the charged officials proper defence, hence each case would need to be taken as per the peculiar facts and circumstances characteristic to that. While taking a due notice of the several judicial citations submitted by the learned counsel Shri Singhal; with due respect, we would like to take them with the qualifier that they all represent the observations of the court considering the facts of these cases. In the present case before us taking the nature of the charge and the totality of the circumstances, the defence argument seeking to project alleged vagueness of the charge as an infirmity does not weigh with us.
7.1 While the alleged incident had taken place in the night of 1-2.1.2005, the subsequent morning a report had been submitted by the concerned SHO to the ACP. A copy of this report has been annexed with the OA as Annexure A/9. A brief recounting of this report would help to understand the version of the respondents in this case. It was mentioned in the report that on the night intervening 1-2.1.2005 at 12.37 AM a PCR call was received in the Police Station, Connaught Place in which one informer Mr. Akhilesh had reported about some Policemen taking Rs.14,000/- from his friends, who were on a motorcycle, near Petrol Pump, Minto Road. He had also informed that after taking the money, the Policemen had set his friends free. On receipt of the call, ASI Tara Chand had been deputed to the spot and he had brought the complainants to the Police Station and had enquired the matter from them. The version received on telephone had been corroborated by the complainants. This ASI, Tara Chand was examined during the inquiry as PW/3. The SHOs report further states that subsequent to the report of ASI Tara Chand, the Addl. SHO, Connaught Place had made further inquiry and had called all the night patrolling staff to the Police Station and had shown them to the complainants. Inspector Brijendra Singh who was the Add. SHO concerned had been examined during the inquiry as PW-3. Further it is mentioned that the complainants had identified two Constables i.e. Constables Banwari Lal and Ram Singhasan. Both these Constables had admitted about having taken the money and had also stated about HC Munshi Lal, Const. Shrimant and Const. Surender Singh as the other three Policemen accompanying them.
7.2 In this report referring to the Duty Roster dated 1.1.2005, the details regarding detailing the aforesaid Police personnel for the patrolling duty on that fateful night had also been mentioned. It was further stated that the statements of the complainants as well as the person who had called the PCR viz. Akhilesh Kumar had been recorded. Further, subsequent to the senior officials being seized with the fact of the misconduct, the Constables had returned the money of Rs.14,000/- to the complainants. By this report, the matter had been brought to the notice of senior officers. It is also stated that as per the verbal orders of the senior officers, all the above five Policemen had been immediately placed under suspension. This is briefly the version of the respondents and the basis on which the charges against the delinquents have been held as proved.
7.3 The learned counsel Shri Arun Bhardwaj would, however, raise a technical objections that the SHO had not been brought during the inquiry to prove this report, nor were the delinquents given an opportunity to cross examine him. However, it is noted that this report was a part of the official record and had been taken as such. Further it was not a relied upon document along with the charge. Again the prosecution was relying on ASI Tara Chand, who had been deputed to the sport on receipt of the PCR and the Add. SHO Inspector Brijendra Singh who had in fact taken the subsequent actions in the matter. Both these officials had been examined during the inquiry as PW 4 and 3 respectively. Hence this plea of the learned counsel objecting to the report of the SHO does not hold ground. Similarly considering the overall facts of the case the argument regarding the co-delinquents being cross-examined does not seem tenable.
8.1 The defence counsels would pose the above incident as baseless and also try to point out various apparent inconsistencies and contradictions. Further they would lay special stress on the extenuating factors to isolate their individual applicants. To illustrate: the learned counsel Shri Arun Bhardwaj while defending Head Constable Munshi Lal and Constable Surender Kumar would repeatedly state that their names had not been mentioned either in the SHOs report or in the complaints by the victims or even identified in the TIP. Similarly, the learned counsel Shri Anil Singal would state that Const. Shrimant had not even been detailed for the patrolling duties on that night. The learned counsel Ms. Ahlawat would also raise a similar plea about constable Ram Singhasan not being detailed on patrolling duty. Various arguments would be posed by the learned counsels to support these contentions.
8.2 A perusal of the enquiry report as also the orders of the DA and the AA reveals that the authorities have taken due notice of the various points raised for defence at different times. While addressing these contentions, the Inquiry Officer made the following observations:-
From the defence statements it came to notice that there is no specific mentioned the names of the constable who made sit Mr. Varun Gupta in the TSR and similarly who made sit Mr. Bhupinder Tiwari on the motorcycle as pillion rider. It is not possible to identify those constables since both the complainants were under fear due to illegal custody of police. Similarly the names of constable who threatened Mr. Bhupinder Tiwari to put in him in the jail could not be ascertained due to fear of police. (verbatim extracts) 8.3 Again the point raised regarding Shri Ram Singhasan or Shri Shrimant not being detailed for patrolling duty that night would also not be borne out by the deposition of PW/2 Chitta Munshi, who was entrusted with maintaining the duty roster on the given date and at the given time:
PW-2 CT. Shv Dan Singh No.482/ND. (Chitha Munshi) P.S. Connaught Place New Delhi. He stated that he is working as Chitha Munshi of P.S. Connaught Place. He brought Chitha (Duty Rosgter) of dated 01/02.01.2005. According to duty Rosgter, CT. Surender Singh No.590/ND and HC. Munshi Ram No.408/ND were detailed for patrolling duty from Minto Road to Bara Khamba Road. Ct. Ram Singhasan No.1303/ND was detailed for patrolling duty from Regal to Panchkunya Road, Ct. Banwari Lal No. 766/ND was on patrolling duty from Bara Khamba Road to Regal and CT. Shrimant No.1296/ND detailed for reserve night duty. As Ct. Ashok No.565/ND was remained absent on that day so CT. Shrimant No.1296/ND was sent for patrolling duty from Regal to Bara Khamba Road in place of CT. Ashok No.565/ND. Similarly, Head Constable Harender No.841/ND was on duty rest sop Ct. Ram Singhasan No.1303/ND was performing duty in his place as Night Reserve. After checking the copy of duty Roster marked exhibit PW-2/A. The inquiry report reveals that despite opportunity given to all delinquents for cross examination, the latter had not been availed by the delinquents or their defence assistants.
9. As mentioned above, accordingly to the respondents, the complainants had been brought to the Police Station and the Addl. SHO had called all the officers on patrolling duty in that area for identification. Different versions are sought to be projected by the defendants counsels even regarding the TIP. While the learned counsel Shri Arun Bhardwaj relying upon the statement of DW/1, a DD Writer, would aver that no such TIP took place and even if it was that was not in the presence of the complainants. Interestingly, the learned counsel Ms. Avinesh Ahlawat would point to the DD No.30-A of ASI Tara Chand (PW/3) and aver that such identification had been deferred to the next morning. The third version would be coming from the learned counsel Shri Anil Singal, who while not denying that the TIP, as claimed by the respondents indeed took place, would submit that his client i.e. Shrimant had not been identified in course of the same. These mutually conflicting stands of the defendants counsels could only appear because all these cases have been heard at the same time and we got an opportunity to appreciate the facts all in one go. Needless to say these would lead to their own logical inferences.
10.1 The respondents have justified the action in this case on multiple grounds. It would be submitted by the learned counsel, Shri Ram Kanwar that the inquiry report in question was absolutely fair and objective and the Inquiry Officer had given due consideration to the depositions by the PWs, DWs as well as the records before him. It would also be submitted that as per the settled law in disciplinary proceedings, the standard of proof was not to prove the charge beyond all doubt but only by preponderance of probability. Further, if there was some evidence and to establish the charge and fulfilling the test of a common prudent man, there could be nothing to question the findings of an inquiry officer or justify reappraisal of evidence in judicial review. These averments would also be reiterated by the learned counsel, Shri R.N. Singh. Learned counsel, Ms. Sumedha Sharma would factually rebut about there being any manipulation in the duty roster of Shrimant and would draw our attention to the clear deposition of PW/2 during the inquiry. The learned counsel, Shri R.N. Singh would also submit that there was no case of any mala fide on the part of the authorities and since there was clear evidence to prove the misconduct, there could be no justification for the Tribunal to intervene in the matter.
10.2 The learned counsel, Shri Ram Kanwar would also cite a number of judicial rulings in support of the contention. The learned counsel would cite from the Apex Courts ruling in High Court of Judicature at Bombay through its Registrar Vs. Uday Singh (1997) 5 SCC 129 where it was held that standard of proof in criminal trial and departmental inquiry were not the same. Again emphasizing that technical rules of evidence and proof beyond doubt were not applicable to departmental inquiry; preponderance of probabilities and conclusions could be drawn as a reasonable man from evidence on record sufficient for the purpose of the departmental inquiry. On facts, it had also been held in this case that guilt had been proved despite some discrepancies in evidence.
Further the learned counsel Shri Ram Kanwar would advert to the decision of the Madras High Court (DB) in A.Alagusundaram Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and others, SLR 2000 (3) 618) where it was held that sufficiency of evidence cannot be investigated under Article 226 of the Constitution; and Rules of Evidence are not required to be applied so long as broad rules of fairness are observed.
Emphasizing the gravity of the misconduct in this case, the learned counsel would cite the decision of the Supreme Court in Govt. of A.P. Vs. B.Ashok Kumar (1997) 5 SCC 478 where it was held that imposition of penalty consistent with the magnitude of misconduct and evidence in support thereof is the right of the disciplinary authority.
On a careful perusal of the inquiry report as also the orders of the Disciplinary and Appellate Authorities, we gather the impression that these are detailed documents showing due application of mind. We also find a specific point-wise addressing the contentions raised by the delinquents at all the levels both at the stage of the inquiry findings as well as the Disciplinary Authority and the Appellate Authority. The points raised including some apparent inconsistencies had not been brushed aside but instead an overall view had been taken given the circumstances of the case. For instance, the analysis of evidence in the inquiry report takes due notice of the discrepancies in various statements regarding the timings of arrival and departure of the complainants from the Police Station as well as of the holding of the TIP. However, the conclusions in this case are based on taking a holistic view on the basis of the entire gamut of evidence. These are reproduced as below:
Conclusion: From PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4 & PW-5 it is very much clear that the amount of Rs.14000/- were taken out by the policemen namely HC Munshi Lal No.408/ND, Ct. Surender Singh No.590/ND, Ct. Ramsinghasan No.1303/ND, Ct. Shrimant No.1269/ND and Ct. Banwari Lal No.766/ND from Mr. Varun Gupta and Mr. Bhupinder Tiwari. It is strongly proved since the said policemen returned the same amount to the complainants on the same night. If they did not do so why they returned the amount of Rs.14000/- to the complainants. From PW-4 it is very much clear that two constables namely Ct. Banwari Lal No.766/ND and Ct. Ramsinghasan 1303/ND both were identified during TIP by the complainants in the P.S. there is contradictory statement of PW-4 regarding timing. Since PW-1 and PW-5 stated that they left P.S. at about 1:00 A.M. or 1:30 A.M. whereas PW-4 statd that they left P.S. Connaught Place at about 3:30 A.M. or 4:00 A.M.similarly, there is a contradictory statements of complainants about timing to reach P.S. Such contradictory statements about timing cannot avoid that the incident did not occur.
From the above facts, evidence on file and discussion it is very much clear that the above said poliemen took out Rs.14000/- from Mr. Varun Gupta and Mr. Bhupinder Tiwari by giving them threatening to the sent in jail.
However, the act of each delinquent/defaulter could not be categorized specifically. It might be possible that both the complainants were remained under fear due to illegal custody of policemen. Two constables namely Ct. Banwari Lal No.766/ND and Ct. Ramsinghasan No.1303/ND were identified by the complainants during TIP conducted in police station on the same night. These two constables disclosed the rest of delinquents. During cross examination of DW-2 by the under signed he disclosed the names of the patrolling staff as Hc. Munshi Lal 408/ND, Ct. Shrimant 1296/ND, Ct. Banwari Lal No.766/ND and Ct. Surender Singh No. 590/ND. Hence the charge is substantiated against all the five delinquents/defaulters.
12. Similarly, the disciplinary authority in its detailed order has taken pains to address each and every plea taken by the delinquents. Taking due notice of the alleged contradictions between the statements of PW-1 and PW-5, timing in the P.S. about the identification parade and the person who had recorded the statements of the complainants etc., the DA taking the overall view that these minor contradictions cannot mitigate the misconduct of the delinquents. While the established and undisputed facts such as receipt of the PCR call from the informer about the incident, deputation of ASI Tara Chand and his report, the identification of two Constables by the complainants and the admission of the fact of their demanding and taking money, the records as per duty roster taking all these facts into consideration, the DA had found it as a fit case for deserving punishment of dismissal from service. Only taking into consideration the fact that all the delinquents had crossed 30 years of service and the impact it could have on their families, a lesser penalty other than dismissal or removal had been awarded.
13. The Appellate Authoritys order is even more detailed than that of the Disciplinary Authority and runs into 7 pages. It deals in separate portions the pleas raised in their appeal by the different delinquents and deals with each one of them point-wise. The Appellate Authority, after due consideration, had found this to be a proved case of corruption. The following observations need a mention:-
I have again heard the appellants in O.R. on 20.11.2007. After going through the file records and hearing the appellants in O.R., I am of the considered view that the misconduct of the appellants in such a condemnable and shameful corrupt activity has eroded the faith of common people in police force and their continuance in the force would cause further irreparable loss to the functioning, credibility of Delhi Police and will also put a bad impression on the other staff. They being a member of the disciplined force were responsible for protecting the life and property of the citizens of the country but instead of discharging their duty honestly and sincerely, they had indulged themselves in such a corrupt activity. They have not only tarnished the image of Delhi Police but also rudely shaken the faith of the citizens of Delhi in the entire police force. They have acted in the most reprehensible manner, which is totally unexpected from the members of the disciplined force. I find the punishment of reduction in rank from Head Const. to Constable for a period of 10 years to Munish Lal & forfeiture of 10 years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay and deciding their suspension period from 2.1.05 to 9.3.05 (Ct. Gutte Shrimanth) & 2.1.05 to 3.6.05 (for other appellants) Not spent on duty awarded to them by the disciplinary authority as unreasonable. Such a less punishment will spread disgruntlement and demotivation amongst the other staff if they will continue to remain in the force. Moreover, the offence proved is no doubt of the gravest in nature rendering them unfit for police service and they deserve for the extreme penalty of dismissal. Therefore, in exercise of powers rendered with me under Rule 25(d)of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980 & in view of the provisions contained in Rule 8(a) of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980, I confirm the proposed punishment and all the appellants namely Consts. Munish Lal, No.408/ND, 2271/DAP, Surender Singh, No.590/ND, 2627/DAP, Ram Singhasan, No.1303/ND, 2758/DAP, Banwari Lal, No.766/ND, 4308/DAP and Gutte Shrimanth, No.1296/ND, 10296/DAP are hereby dismissed from the service of Delhi Police with immediate effect. Their suspension period are also decided as period Not spent on duty for all intents & purposes.
14. To conclude, we do not find the present case as one justifying our judicial intervention in the decisions taken by the competent authorities after due observance of the prescribed procedures and giving a reasonable opportunity for defence at every stage. It is a case of joint misconduct and the charges against the 5 co-delinquents have been held to be proved on the basis of evidence adduced during the inquiry, applying the settled principles of preponderance of probability and the test of a common prudent person acting reasonably and objectively. The contentions made before us in support of the OAs seem to be super technical in nature and would amount to not only reappraising the evidence, which is ordinarily not within the purview of judicial review; but also indirectly be evoking the laws of the Evidence Act which, as settled, are not attracted in domestic proceedings. After a detailed consideration, we do not find either denial of a fair opportunity to defend themselves to the delinquents or the punishment being disproportionate to the gravity of the misconduct. Resultantly, the OAs are found to be bereft of merit and dismissed with no order as to costs. A copy of this order is to be placed in each of the five OAs.
(Veena Chhotray) (M. Ramachandran) Member (A) Vice Chairman (J) /pkr/