The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for thorough consideration of evidence and the need for proof in cases of alleged misconduct.

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Gyaneshwar @ Jojo, convicted for having committed an offence punishable under Section 392/397 IPC had filed Crl. Appeal No.400/2006 challenging he being convicted and sentenced to undergo imprisonment. He sought interim bail pleading that his sister was to be married on June 29, 2006 and he being the only male member in the family his presence was necessary to make necessary arrangement for his sister’s marriage. To ascertain the correctness of : (i) marriage of Gyaneshwar’s sister; and (ii) there being no other male member in the family, the SHO of the concerned Police Station marked the application seeking interim bail to the petitioner, working as a Sub Inspector. Needless to state the petitioner had to ascertain whether there was no other male member in the family.

2. As per the department the petitioner submitted a report to the SHO recording therein that he had gone to Gyaneshwar’s house whose mother informed him that Gyaneshwar’s father i.e. her husband had died.

3. It is the further case of the department that when produced before the Court, the report was found to be wanting requiring a proper report to be filed and because petitioner was not available, SI Suraj Bhan was required to conduct further enquiry and submit a report to the SHO; and he submitted a report as under:-

“Sir,

It is stated that matter was listed for 16/6/06 in the High Court of Delhi. It was again listed for 19.6.06 as Court asked for some more information and regarding the fact of marriage and family background of convict Gyanehswar @ Jojo.

On further enquiry it is found that father of the convict Gyaneswar @ Jojo is alive and apart from him 3 Chachas (paternal uncles) and two Mamas are also assisting in the arrangement for the marriage.

Criminal record of the convict was also presented before the Court.

Submitted please.

Sd-

SI Suraj Bhan P.S. Pd Nagar, Delhi

19.6.06.”

4. The department alleges that the petitioner deliberately furnished a false report to help Gyaneshwar. On August 28, 2006 a departmental enquiry was initiated against the petitioner on the following grounds of misconduct:-

(i) He had deliberately submitted a false report to Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 16.6.06, which could have only illegally helped the robbery convict Gyaneshwar @ Jojo.

(ii) He had wilfully defied the legal order of SHO Prasad Nagar to conduct further enquiry into the matter of Gyaneshwar @ Jojo. This he did despite a written warning in the Daily Dairy on 18.6.06.

(iii) He has wilfully absented himself from duty on 18.06.06 when he was supposed to go for the checking at 7 PM as per the duty Roster of P.S Prasad Nagar. This absence could have just one motive, that, he wanted to mislead the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi on 19.6.06 with the ill-gotten motive of helping Gyaneshwar @ Jojo.

5. Along with the Memorandum annexing the Summary of Allegations a list of relied upon documents was annexed, which records that the offending report dated June 13, 2006 prepared by the petitioner and submitted to the Delhi High Court on June 16, 2006 was a listed document.

6. Three witnesses HC Mahender Singh PW-1, SI Suraj Bhan PW-2 and ACP Surinder Singh PW-3 were examined by the department to support the three indictments of which the petitioner was charged off, and we do not burden our opinion by noting the testimony of the three witnesses in detail and the documents proved by them for the Inquiry Officer has opined that Charge No.(ii) and (iii) were not proved. Only Charge No.

(i) was held to be proved in respect whereof SI Suraj Bhan PW-2 proved his report submitted by him on June 19, 2006 and ACP Surinder Singh PW-3 deposed that he had marked Gyaneshwar’s application to the petitioner for verification.

7. Surprisingly, the record of inquiry produced before us would reveal that the so called report furnished to the SHO by the petitioner which was allegedly produced in this Court was never exhibited. In fact, it is not even a part o