Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Ram Kishan - Appellant
Versus
Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
W.P.(C) 6822 of 2011
Decided On : 05-08-2022
JUDGMENT
Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J. (Oral)--The present Petition is arising out of an order dated 27.01.2011 passed in Original Application No. 147/2008 by the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT) dismissing the Original Application which was preferred against the dismissal order dated 06.06.2007 and the order rejecting the plea dated 07.12.2007.
2. The facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner before this Court who was serving on the Post of Constable in the Delhi Police establishment allegedly on 30.04.2006 while posted at PS Parliamentary Street, stopped a vehicle and demanded bribe from the vehicle owner. However, at the same time Inspector Satya Pal Singh, SHO Tilak Marg, reached the spot and the Petitioner immediately permitted the driver of the Maruti Van to leave the place and he also fled away from the spot on his Government Motorcycle.
3. The driver finally lodged a report in the matter with the Police and a preliminary enquiry took place. In the preliminary enquiry, the Enquiry Officer found the Petitioner guilty on 05.10.2006, and in those circumstances, the competent Disciplinary Authority took a decision on 22.12.2006 to hold a regular Departmental Enquiry keeping in view Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules, 1980.
4. A charge-sheet was issued to the Petitioner, and the Petitioner did submit a reply to the charges levelled against him
5. In the Departmental Enquiry, the driver of the vehicle to whom demand was made, was examined in detail as PW-5. The Station House Officer who was also present at the spot was examined as PW-6, and other witnesses were also examined. Not only this, the defense witnesses were also examined in the matter, and the Enquiry Officer has held the Petitioner guilty of the misconduct.
6. The findings of the Enquiry Officer are reproduced as under:
"DISCUSSION OF EVIDENCE
All the depositions made by the PW/DWs defence statement given by Const. Ram Kishan No. 1200/ND and other evidence adduced during the enquiry were examined carefully. According to the statements of PWs, PW-I proved that const. Ram Kishan had stopped a Maruti Van on 30.04.06 in the morning and on seeing SHO/Tilak Marg he ran away on Govt. motorcycle. The driver of the Maruti Van told that this Const. Ram Kishan is teasing them. PW-2 proved that Const. Ram Kishan had demanded Rs.50/- from him and PW-2 was ready to give Rs.50/- but on seeing SHO/Tilak Marg he ran away on yellow motorcycle. PW-3 has proved that a PE under rule 15(ii) Delhi Police (Punishment & Appeal) Rules 1980 was conducted by her and final report sent to senior officer which is exhibited as PW-3/A. In the report PW-3 has proved the demand of Rs.50/- from the Maruti van driver Chander Pal by Const. Ram Kishan o. 1200/ND. PW-4 has proved the patrolling duty of Const. Ram Kishan on motorcycle No. DL-1SN-0813 on Ferozshah Road and Ashok Road on 30.04.06. He was called by SHO/Tilak Marg and departure was made vide DD No. 8-B dated 30.04.06 exhibited as Ex.PW-4/A and copy of duty roster exhibited as Ex. PW 4/B. PW-5 has proved that as per orders of SHO/Tilak Marg he enquired the matter and Const. Ram Kishan had admitted his fault in writing and during enquiry the driver of the Maruti Van No. DL-CC-816, Chander Pal proved that Const. Ram Kishan has demanded Rs.50/- as bribe in lieu of loaded small goats. In this connection a enquiry report was sent to senior officer which is exhibited as Ex. PW-6/A. PW-6 proved that Const. Ram Kishan stopped the Maruti Van driver Chander Pal and demanded Rs.50/- from him. Const. Ram Kishan was using yellow colour motorcycle No. DL-ICC-8316 by loading small goats.
I have also considered the defence produced by the defaulter Const. Ram Kishan. DW-1 and DW-2 both are the Constables of Delhi Police force and were produced by him in his defence and both have stated in their statements that SI Rajender Prashad PW-5 during conducting formal enquiries put pressure on the Const. Ram Kishan to admit his fault as per SHO's
Judicial review of disciplinary decisions is limited to procedural fairness; evidence supporting misconduct must be acknowledged, and findings will not be overturned unless shown to be perverse.
The court emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in departmental enquiries and the principle that the High Court cannot act as a second court of first appeal.
Fairness in disciplinary proceedings requires adherence to natural justice, and actions unsupported by adequate evidence are not sustainable.
In departmental proceedings, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities, and the court will not interfere with the disciplinary authority's findings unless there is a clear ....
The High Court does not act as an appellate authority in disciplinary matters and will not interfere with the quantum of punishment unless it is shocking to the conscience.
The main legal point established is the limited scope of interference in departmental inquiries by the court, which can only be done in specific circumstances such as violation of principles of natur....
Under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the High Court shall not re-appreciate the evidence, interfere with the conclusions in the enquiry, in case the same has been conducted in accordan....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
