Disciplinary penalties against police officers require clear evidence that witnesses were won over; mere acquittal does not suffice.

ORDER (ORAL)

Hon’ble Mr. R. N. Singh, Member (J)

In the present Original Application, the applicants six in numbers, the first and the second applicants are Head Constables and the remaining applicants are Constables under the respondents have challenged order dated 12.02.2019 (Annexure A-2) by which a major penalty of forfeiture of four years approved service permanently entailing proportionate reduction in pay has been inflicted upon them and the period of suspension starting from 15.02.2008 has been declared as not spent on duty. Under challenge is also the appellate order dated 23.09.2019 (Annexure A-1) vide which the Appellate Authority has rejected the statutory appeal of the applicants. The applicants have prayed for the following relief(s) in the present Original Application:-

“a) Quash and set aside the impugned orders viz. the appellate authority's order dated 23/09/2019 (Annexure A/1), the penalty order dated 12/02/2019 ( Annexure A/2) and the finding report (Annexure A/3).

b) Accord all consequential benefits including seniority and monetary benefits and treating the suspension period as spent on duty for all intents and purposes.

C) Award costs of the proceedings; and

d) Pass any order/relief/directions) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interests of justice in favour of the applicants.”

2. The claim of the applicants has been disputed and contested by the respondents in the counter reply filed by them and the applicants have filed rejoinder reiterating their claim and the grounds pleaded in support thereof.

3. We have heard the learned counsels for the parties. We have also perused the pleadings available on record.

4. The undisputed facts in the present Original Application are that the departmental inquiry was initiated against the applicants along with a few others for the same allegations as in FIR No. 33 dated 14.02.2008 registered u/s 384/385/389/342/120B IPC with P.S. Economic Offences Wing, Delhi Police. In the trial before the learned Court of Competent Jurisdiction in the said case FIR, the applicants stood acquitted vide order/judgment dated 07.11.2017. The factum of their acquittal vide the said order/judgment of the learned Trial Court was brought to the notice of the respondents, however, the respondents passed the impugned orders of penalty on the ground that in the trial, main witnesses have turned hostile and, therefore, it seemed to the respondents that the main witnesses in the case have been won over by the applicants/delinquents.

5. Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that the impugned order has been passed without application of mind, inasmuch as, there is neither a finding of the learned Trial Court in its order/judgment dated 07.11.2017 that witnesses have been won over and/or any reason has been given by the respondents while passing the impugned order as to how they have come to conclusion that the witnesses have been won over by the applicants/delinquents during trial of the said case FIR.

6. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the impugned order is in violation of the provisions of Rule 12 of Delhi Police Punishment and Appeal Rules (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and also the judgment of the larger Bench of this Tribunal in Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v/s Government of NCT of Delhi & Ors. In support of his argument, learned counsel for the applicants has placed reliance on the order/judgment dated 09.09.2011 of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in W. P. (C) No. 22584/2005 titled Commissioner of