Back
2012 Supreme(Del) 233
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BADAR DURREZ AHMED, V.K.JAIN
MAHENDER SINGH … Petitioner
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. … Respondents
W.P.(C) 301/2012
Decided On : 27.01.2012
For the Petitioner:M.M.Sudan alongwith petitioner-in-person.
For Respondent: Mr Viraj Datar
The court upheld the principle that the standard of proof and the quantum of punishment in a departmental inquiry are different from those in a criminal trial. It also affirmed the principle that the court should not interfere with the punishment imposed unless it is outrageously disproportionate.
Headnote:
Corruption - Delhi Police - Delhi Police Act (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1980 - Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(1)(d) - Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1980
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, a Head Constable in Delhi Police, was charge-sheeted for corrupt practices. He was alleged to have settled a traffic violation for a bribe and was subsequently removed from service. The petitioner challenged the order on the grounds of procedural violations and lack of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's actions constituted a cognizable offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It held that the departmental inquiry was fair and the evidence supported the guilt of the petitioner. The court also upheld the quantum of punishment as proportionate to the charge proved against the petitioner.
Issues: Procedural violations, sufficiency of evidence, and proportionality of punishment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the departmental inquiry was not akin to a criminal trial and that the standard of proof required was different. It also held that the punishment imposed was not outrageously disproportionate and was warranted in the case of corrupt activities by a public servant.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed, and the petitioner's removal from service was upheld.
V.K. JAIN, J.
1. This writ petition is directed against the order dated 04.7.2011, passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the Tribunal”) in OA No. 1719/2010, filed by the petitioner was dismissed.
2. The petitioner is a Head Constable in Delhi Police. He was charge-sheeted on the allegation that on 19.2.2008, while posted at Aaya Nagar Police Picket, he stopped a van carrying SI Sanjay Gupta and Head Constable Ranbir of Vigilance Branch of Delhi. The petitioner pointed out to SI Sanjay Gupta and Head Constable Ranbir that they had not put on their seat belts and asked SI Sanjay Gupta to show his driving licence. It was further alleged that the petitioner told them that they were liable to pay Rs 1200/- as fine. Thereafter, SI Sanjay Gupta talked to the petitioner so as to settle the matter without issue of challan. The petitioner told him that the matter could be settled on payment of Rs 200/- which he should pay to one Constable Jagdish, who was standing nearby. At this stage, Inspector Raj Singh switched on the video camera and took photographs of Constable Jagdish accepting two currency notes of Rs 100/- each from SI Sanjay Gupta and putting them in his pocket. The currency was recovered from the pocket of the trouser, which Constable Jagdish was wearing. The petitioner was caught on the spot, but, taking advantage of a scuffle which ensued there, Constable Jagdish pushed Inspector Raj Singh aside and fled from the spot.
3. The Inquiry Officer concluded that it had been established that the petitioner and Constable Jagdish Singh had indulged in corrupt practice since the petitioner has stopped the vehicle, settled the matter for Rs 200/- for not challaning SI Sanjay Gupta, and Constable Jagdish Singh, on instructions from him, had accepted the amount of Rs 200/-, which was later recovered by the Vigilance Team from his pocket. Vide order dated 16.11.2009, the petitioner was removed from service. The appeals filed by the petitioner as well as Constable Jagdish were dismissed by the Appellate Authority. The OA filed by the petitioner having been dismissed by the Tribunal, he is before us by way of this writ petition.
4. The impugned order has been assailed by the petitioner on the ground that (i) the inquiry was held in violation of Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police Act (Punishment & Appeals) Rules 1980 and (ii) the CD relied upon during the course of inquiry was not supplied to the petitioner which prejudiced him in making his defence before the Inquiry Officer.
5. The contention with respect to breach of Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1980 was also raised before the Tribunal. The contention was rejected on the ground that the charge against the petitioner was purely a matter of internal checking by the Vigilance Team and could not be compared with other crimes committed by the police officials and, therefore, compliance with the provision need not insisted upon in such cases.
Rule 15 (2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1980 reads as under: “15(2) In cases in which a preliminary enquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence by a police officer of subordinate rank in his official relations with the public, departmental enquiry shall be ordered after obtaining prior approval of the Additional Commissioner of Police concerned as to whether a criminal case should be registered and investigated or a departmental enquiry should be held.”
The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted before us that the allegations against the petitioner indicate that while, striking a deal with SI Sanjay Gupta, the petitioner presumed him to be a general member of the public and not a police officer and, therefore, the case is clearly covered by Rule 15(2) of Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeals) Rules, 1980. It would be seen from a perusal of the Rule that when the preliminary inquiry discloses that the act comm
