Judgment

VENKATARAMIAH, J. :- It is unfortunate that this case has arisen between lawyers and police who are both guardians of law and who constitute two important segments of society on whom the stability of the country depends. It is hoped that cordiality between the two sections will be restored soon.

2. In order to avoid any further delay in the proceedings before the Committee consisting of Goswamy and Wadhwa, JJ, constituted by Order dated 23rd February, 1988 to enquire into certain incidents which took place on the 15th January, 1988, 21st January, 1988 and 17th February, 1988, we pass the following order now but we shall give detailed reasons in support of this order in due course.

The order is as under :

1. This order is passed on the basis of the material available on record, the various steps already taken before the Committee and other peculiar features of the case.

2. The Delhi Administration has to examine first all its witnesses as required by R. 5(5)(a) of the Commissions of Inquiry (Central) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) framed under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Even those witnesses who may have filed affidavits already may first be examined-in-chief before they are cross-examined, since it is stated that when the affidavits were filed the deponents did not know what the other parties who have also filed affidavits had stated in their affidavits. The question whether a party has the right of cross-examination or not shall be decided by the Committee in accordance with S. 8-C of the Act. In the facts and circumstances of, the case to which reference will be, made hereafter this direction issued to the Delhi Administration to examine its witnesses first as provided by R. 5(5)(a) of the Rules referred to above does not apply to those witnesses falling under S. 8-B of the Act, who have to be examined at the end of the inquiry as opined by the Committee itself.

3. We have gone through the several affidavits and other material placed before the Committee and also the Interim Report dated 9-4-88 passed by the Committee. In para 13 of the Interim Report the Committee has observed thus :

"During the course of the inquiry, we have to examine the conduct of various police officers and others and particularly, as the record shows, of the D.C.P. (North), Addl. D.C.P. (North), S.H.O., P.S. Samepur (Badli) and S.I. Incharge Police Post, Tis Hazari and S.I., Samepur (Badli)".

In para 14 of the Interim report it is observed :

"Lawyers have seriously urged that this Committee should send a report recommending suspension of the D.C.P. (North) Ms. Kiran Bedi".

Ultimately the Committee recommended the transfer of the petitioners in these cases, namely, Ms. Kiran Bedi, D.C.P. (North) and Jinder Singh S.I. Incharge, Police Post, Tis Hazari.

Section 8-B of the Act reads :

"8-B. If, at any stage of the inquiry, the Commission,-

(a) considers it necessary to inquire into the conduct of any person; or

(b) is of opinion that the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry,

the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence :

Provided that nothing in this section shall apply where the credit of a witness is being impeached"

In its Interim Report the Committee has unequivocally observed that it had to examine the conduct of various police officers, and in particular among others Ms. Kiran Bedi, D.C.P. (North) and Jinder Singh, S.I., Incharge Police Post, Tis Hazari.

Having given our anxious consideration to all the aspects of the case we hold that the petitioners Ms. Kiran Bedi and Jinder Singh are persons who fall under S. 8-B of the Act and have to be dealt with accordingly.

4. According to the Committees own opinion formed in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, all those persons to whom notices under S. 8-B of the Act are issued have to be examined at the