Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

28. The Tribunal relying upon the case of Constable Jagdish Kumar in OA No.2353/2006, 5.10/07; Raja Ram Vs. Speaker Lok Sabha and Ors. 2007 (3) SCC 184; Sudesh Kumar Vs. State of Haryana and Ors. 2005 (11) SCC 525 has also observed that when allegations made against an employee are based upon video footage, dispensation of enquiry has not been found favour by the Apex Court.

29. Some observation made by the Tribunal in para 12 of the impugned order which highlights discrimination qua the present respondents in the matter of holding a departmental enquiry viz-a-viz one Sub-Inspector of Police on whom also sting operation was undertaken by the same news channel and where enquiry was held is also reproduced:

37. The view taken by the Tribunal that raw footage of video film seen by someone who is to appreciate the evidence may have some evidentiary value, but, the edited version of the video film cannot be made the sole basis for returning a finding. Unless, therefore, corroborated, it would have no evidentiary value. In this regard reference was to a judgment delivered by the Apex Court in Raja Ram Pal Vs Speaker, Lok Sabha & Others [(2007) 3 SCC 184].

38. In the case of Ex. Constable Chotey Lal Vs. Union of India 2000 (10) SCC 196 and Ors. also relied upon by the respondents dealing with the opinion that it was not reasonably practical to hold the enquiry in the facts of that case the Apex Court has been pleased to observe as follows: