SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Satish Chandra Sharma, Subramonium Prasad, JJ.
Suresh Kumar - Appellant
Versus
CP - Respondent
W.P.(C) 7245 of 2003
Decided On : 09-11-2022




In disciplinary proceedings, findings must be supported by substantial evidence, and misconduct can be established by preponderance of probabilities, not beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1990; Delhi Police Act, 1978 - Misconduct and extortion - The appellant, a Head Constable, was dismissed following discovery of 75 Dirhams during a surprise inspection, where he was accused of extorting money from passengers. The Disciplinary Authority and CAT upheld the dismissal based on sufficient evidence and procedural compliance. (Paras 1, 5, 8, 20)

(B) Disciplinary Proceedings - Judicial Review - The Court emphasized that interference in disciplinary matters is limited to ensuring proper procedures are followed and that evidence exists to support the authority's findings, asserting that findings based on reasonable probabilities are sufficient. (Paras 21, 26)

(C) Burden of Evidence - It was ruled that a disciplinary inquiry does not require the same proof as a criminal trial, and presence of recovered currency from the delinquent confirmed misconduct without need for eyewitnesses. (Paras 18, 23)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was a Head Constable accused of extorting money from passengers at IGI Airport. Following a surprise check by the Deputy Commissioner of Police, 75 Dirhams were seized from him, leading to his dismissal after an inquiry.

Findings of Court:
The petition lacked merit, as findings were supported by testimonies and evidence. The absence of certain witnesses did not undermine the outcomes.

Issues: The primary issues focused on whether the inquiry's findings were based on sufficient evidence, and whether the disciplinary actions were disproportionate or unjust.

Ratio Decidendi: The court found that substantial evidence existed, thereby justifying the inquiry’s conclusions and the consequent punishment. The court stressed the requirement of adherence to procedural propriety without an exorbitant standard of proof.

Result: Writ Petition dismissed.

Table of Content
1. overview of the incident and disciplinary actions. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. summary of cat's reasoning in dismissal. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
3. arguments presented by the petitioner. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
4. examination of evidence and procedural fairness. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
5. assessment of misconduct and punishment appropriateness. (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. judicial review limitations on disciplinary actions. (Para 20 , 21)
7. legal precedents on disciplinary review standards. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
8. conclusion and dismissal of the writ petition. (Para 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT

Satish Chandra Sharma, C.J.

1. The Petition is arising out of an order dated 26.08.2022 passed by the Ld. Central Administration Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as "CAT") in O. A. No. 2635/ 2002 decided on 07.08.2003.

2. The undisputed facts of the case reveal that the Petitioner before this Court was an employee serving on the post of Head Constable in the services of Delhi Police, and was posted at Terminal 2 of the Indira Gandhi International (IGI) Airport, and on 24.03.1996, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (DCP)/ IGI Airport conducted a surprise visit from 03:30 Hours to 04:00 Hours and was informed that ASI Jagmal Singh and Head Constable Suresh Kumar who were checking Passports of passengers were collecting money from the passengers and, in those circumstances, a search was carried out by the DCP/IGI Airport at 0405 Hours on 24.03.1996. It is an admitted fact that from the pocket of the Petitioner Head Constable Suresh Kumar, 75 Dirhams were recovered and ASI Jagmal Singh was also present on duty at the same point of time.

3. The facts further reveal that based upon the aforesaid incident, a seizure memo was prepared. Recovered amount was deposited in Malkhana of PS/IGI Airport, Delhi, and an action was initiated under the Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules, 1990 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules") read with Section 21 of the Delhi Police Act, 1978.

4. A joint enquiry was ordered in the matter against ASI Jagmal Singh and Head Constable Suresh Kumar - the present Petitioner. The summary of allegations leveled against the Petitioner are reproduced as under:

    "You ASI Jagmal Singh, 3096/D and HC Suresh Kumar, 220/A when detailed at Arrival Exit, Gate Shift "B" NITC Airport on the night intervening 23/24.3.96, were checked by DCP/IGI Airport during his surprise visit at Terminal-II from 3.30 hrs. to 4.00 hrs. Your activities were suspicious and were found checking passports of selected persons. Besides, on questioning passengers, passing/exiting through that gate, it was confirmed that police officials at that gate were extorting and taking money. At 4.05 hrs., DCP/IGI Airport, Delhi searched the pockets of HC Suresh Kumar No.220/A and 75 Dirhams (5x5 + 5x10 Dirhams) were recovered from the left side pocket of his pant whereas ASI Jagmal Singh 3096/D was also present at that time at the same point of duty. The seizure memo, was prepared and the recovered amount was deposited in Malkhana PS IGI Airport, Delhi. The above act of ASI Jagmal Singh, 3096/D and HC Suresh Kumar, 220/A amounts to gross- misconduct of indulging into corrupt practice in discharge of their official duties which renders them liable for departmental action in accordance with DP (P&A) Rules-1980 as envisaged under Section 21 of DP Act, 1978."

5. An Enquiry Officer was appointed in the matter and after meticulous examination of the witnesses, it was held that the charges stood established. Finally an order was passed on 20.09.1999 by the Disciplinary Authority dismissing the Petitioner as well as ASI Jagmal Singh from service.

6. An Appeal was preferred in the matter and the Commissioner of Police by an order dated 26.08.2002 dismissed the Appeal by a detailed and exhaustive speaking order.

7. The Petitioner being aggrieved by the order of punishment dated 20.09.1999 and the order passed by the Disciplinary Authority dated 26.08.2002

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top