AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CJ

1. Constable Rajender Kumar, the petitioner herein, faced a joint departmental inquiry with his co-delinquent Constable Virender Kumar on the following charge:

“I, Inspector Ashok Goswami, E.O./D.E.Cell, Delhi charge you Const.Virender Kumar, No.1737/SD and Const. Rajender Kumar No.3417/SD that you were on Motor Cycle patrolling duty in the area of PS Sarita Vihar in the night between 4.5.6.05, Shri R.S.Chauhan, ACP was on surprise checking from Vigilance Branch and at about 01.30 AM, he reached near Apollo Hospital on Mathura Road, he saw a few long route trucks parked on the road near patrol pump. He also saw four yellow colour Police Motor Cycles with staff near petrol pump. He watched the motor cycles for 5-10 minutes. Soon these motor cycles started chasing a few trucks coming from Badarpur side. The ACP/Vigilance also followed motor cycles after taking U-turn and intercepted one motor cycle No.DL-1 SL-6653 with you two Constables, Virender Kumar No.1737/SD and Rajender Kumar NO.3417/SD, who had stopped a truck (mini) NO.38-A-4918. When the ACP/Vigilance reached near motor cycle, he found Const. Rajender Kumar, No.3417/SD standing near the left side window of the truck and truck owner Israr Ahmed was giving Rs.20/ to you. Both of you Constables were on patrolling duty. On enquiry it was revealed that the motor cycle staff on patrolling stopped trucks, carrying goats to Sadar Bazar slaughter house and you extorted money from them on the pretext of not taking action for loading animals over and above the permissible limits. You Const. Rajender Kumar, No.3417/SD and Const.Virender Kumar, No.1737/SD also stopped truck No.HR-38-A-4918 with intention to extort money from truck operator.

The aforesaid act of you Const.Rajender Kumar No.3417/SD and Const.Virender Kumar NO.1737/SD amounts to gross misconduct negligence, remissness in discharge of your duty as public servant and unbecoming of a police officer which renders you both for punishment under the provisions of Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980.”

2. The Inquiry Officer in his report dated 25th January, 2006 held that the charge against both the Constables stood substantiated. The Deputy Commissioner of Police, South District, New Delhi, after following due procedure, vide order dated 19th April, 2006 inflicted upon the petitioner and the co-delinquent punishment of forfeiting three years’ approved service permanently, entailing reduction in their pay from Rs.4240/-to Rs.3965/-per month and Rs.4050 to Rs.3795 respectively. The appeal carried against the order of the disciplinary authority was dismissed by the appellate authority vide order dated 23rd August, 2006.

3. In OA No.468/2007 preferred before the Tribunal it was contended on behalf of the petitioner that the inquiry conducted by the ACP (Vigilance) Shri R.S.Chauhan was preliminary inquiry as envisaged under Rule 15(2) of the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1980 (hereinafter for brevity’s sake referred to as the Rules) and inasmuch as the preliminary inquiry disclosed commission of cognizable offence by a police officer of a subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental inquiry could be ordered after obtaining prior approval from the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held. It was urged that no approval as envisaged under sub-rule (2) of Rule 15 was accorded by the Additional Commissioner of Police and that being so the entire proceedings culminating into the impugned orders would be vitiated and deserve to be set aside. In support of this contention reliance was placed on the decision of the Tribunal in the matter of Ravinder Singh v. Government of NCT of Delhi and Another (OA NO.1125/2004 decided on 15.10.2004) which was affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court in WP(C) 2964/2005 (Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Ravinder Sing

Click Here to Read the rest of this document