Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: section 118 penal code in Subhash Chander S/O Mr. Vaishno Dutt vs The Commissioner Of Police on 28 February, 2014Matching Fragments
Mr. A.K. Bhardwaj:
The applicant was enlisted in Delhi Police as Constable (Executive) on 21.11.1988 (afternoon). While posted in 8th Bn. DAP, he proceeded on 6+9 days casual leave vide DD No.53 at 2.15 PM on 31.3.1998 on the ground that he intended to go to his native village in Jammu and Kashmir as his mother was seriously ill. On 1.4.1998 he indulged himself in criminal activities and was arrested in case FIR No.118/98 under Sections 384/511 IPC at PS Delhi Cantt. New Delhi. As per the contents of FIR, on 1.4.1998 a foreigner was going to IGI Airport in TSR No. DL-1R-3177 and when it reached Gurgaon Road Parade Road T-point, the same was stopped by the applicant who asked the foreigner to show his passport. After seeing the passport, he asked the foreigner if he had any foreign currency with him. On his refusal the applicant attempted to extort money from him. In the meantime, the TSR driver succeeded in escaping from the clutches of Constable and dropped the foreigner at IGI Airport. While returning from IGI Airport, the TSR Driver, Mr. Subhash Chand s/o Mr. Bhaiya Lal r/o Servant Quarter No.50, Pratap Chowk, Delhi Cantt, New Delhi came to know that the person who had tried to extort the money from the foreigner was a Constable, as such he reported the matter to the local police and accordingly the aforementioned case was registered against the applicant. The applicant was also placed under suspension vide DD No.34-A dated 13.5.1994, PS Delhi Cantt., approved by the DCP/ South-West District, New Delhi vide office order No.2660-2675/HAP-II (SWD) dated 26.5.1994 and a departmental inquiry was also initiated against him by DCP/South-West District vide order No.2823-35/HAP-II (SWD) dated 7.6.1994 on the allegation that while posted at PS Delhi Cantt. he was detailed for picket duty on the night of 12/13.5.1994 at Gurgaon Road Picket at about 2.20 AM, he stopped one John Hall of USA while he was going to IGI Airport in a TSR, checked the belongings of the foreign national, harassed him unnecessarily and also took his watch as gift, which was reportedly returned to him on intervention of the local police at IGI Airport and Delhi Cantt. The applicant was also arrested in a criminal case FIR No.305/94 under Sections 363/366/342/ 376/511 /34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj on 18.11.1994 and was deemed under suspension w.e.f. 18.11.1994 by DCP/South-West District vide office order No.7420-7440-A-II (SWD) dated 9.12.1994. In view of the aforementioned activities, the disciplinary authority passed the order dated 6.4.1998 dismissing him from service. For easy reference, relevant excerpt of the said order is reproduced as under:-
i) Ex. Constable Stender Kumar v. Union of India & others (O.A.No.51/2001) decided on 25.10.2011,
ii) Deepak Dubey v. The Commissioner of Police, Delhi Police Headquarters & another, 2007 (3) AISLJ 338,
iii) Ex. Const. Harvir Singh v. Union of India & others (O.A.No.1471/1998) decided on 26.5.2000; and
iv) Deepak Kumar v. Commissioner of Police & others (O.A. No.1473/2007) decided on 21.11.2007.
6. On the other hand, Mrs. Pritma K. Gupta, learned counsel for respondents submitted that the dismissal of the applicant is not solely based on the involvement in the FIR No.118/98 under Sections 384/511 IPC PS Delhi Cantt., New Delhi, as the applicant was earlier involved / arrested in criminal case FIR No.305/94 under Sections 363/366/ 342/376/511/34 IPC PS Vasant Kunj on 18.11.1994 and was deemed under suspension w.e.f. 18.11.1994 vide DCP/South West District office order dated 9.12.1994. The applicant was also placed under suspension vide DD No.34-A dated 13.5.1994, PS Delhi Cantt. In paragraph 4.11 of the reply it is stated that the sole witness relied upon by the prosecution turned hostile. The said paragraph reads as under:-
11. As far as the plea of violation of principles of natural justice and un-called for resortion to Article 311 (2) (b) of the Constitution raised on behalf of the applicant is concerned, we find that when the order of dismissal was passed in the year 1988 and the applicant had his remedy to question the same within one year of the date of the order or after expiry of six months from the date of representation thereagainst required to be made under Section 20 of Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the challenge to the penalty order on said ground would be barred by limitation. Nevertheless in view of the judgment of the Full Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singhs case (supra), the applicant got a cause of action to seek assessment to revisit the penalty order on his acquittal. Though we find that from the charges of criminal case registered vide FIR No.118/98 under Sections 384/511 IPC the applicant was acquitted on 3.8.2011, but it is not clear that when was he acquitted from the charges in the criminal case registered vide FIR No.305/94 under Sections 363/366/342/376/511/34 IPC, PS Vasant Kunj on 18.11.1994. In paragraph 4.13 of the Original Application only a bald statement has been made by the applicant that he has since been acquitted from the charges in FIR No.305/94 but it is not stated that on what date he was so acquitted. If the acquittal of the applicant in the criminal case is more than two and a half years old as on 13.8.2012, i.e. the date of filing the present Original Application, the O.A. would be barred by limitation for both the causes, i.e. challenge to the order of dismissal as also the revisiting of the same under Rule 12 (ibid). If such order is passed within two and a half years of the date of filing of the present Original Application, the competent authority need to take a view in terms of Section 12 (ibid).