O R D E R:

Petitioner – Sub-Inspector of Police was issued a charge memo alleging that on 12.11.2007, he fraudulently affixed a previous dated arrival stamp of 12.01.2005 in the passport of Sri D. Venkateshwarlu, at the Immigration counter so as to conceal his overstayed period for which passenger is stated to have paid US $300 (equivalent to Rs. 10,000/-). This fraudulent act came to light when the passenger was denied entry at George Bush International Airport, Houston, Texas in July 2009 and was deported back to India. Petitioner denies the charges leveled against him and asserts that no wrongdoing took place. He contends that a regular enquiry was conducted into the charges, during which he requested the Enquiry Officer to provide documents supporting the allegations and CCTV footage from the time of the alleged incident to disprove the charges. However, the Enquiry Officer ignored these requests. It is claimed that prosecution did not produce key evidence, such as the passport of complainant or A3 verification stamp during the enquiry, despite specific requests. According to petitioner, the stamp in question dated 2005 was not in his custody at the relevant time, as the design of stamps at the airport changes frequently. He states that it was highly improbable for him to have used 2005 stamp and altered the date from 2007 to 2005. Furthermore, the stamp or its soft copy was not seized by the authorities, and the enquiry did not address whether the material was sent to a forensic laboratory. Petitioner highlights the fact that immigration process for passengers takes only a few minutes, with many passengers passing through the immigration counter daily, all under strict CCTV surveillance. Given this, he asserts that it would have been impossible to conduct any fraudulent transaction without detection. The Enquiry Officer’s own admission in cross-examination confirmed that it was not possible to alter the stamp due to the presence of CCTV cameras. Petitioner claims that no CCTV footage or evidence was presented linking him to the alleged fraudulent activities or monetary transactions.

Further, petitioner notes that Sri S. Jayaram, Inspector of Police referred to a report by Sri B. Ravinder Reddy, which led to registration of a criminal case on 29.07.2009 under Crime No. 359 of 2009, charging petitioner under Sections 420, 468, and 471 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, the enquiry did not present any incriminating evidence against him. Petitioner asserts that the entire enquiry was conducted with a biased approach, with no independent corroborative witness supporting the department's claims. Moreover, the department failed to call the passenger in question, as a witness during the enquiry, despite his request; this omission was a violation of natural justice and denied him a fair opportunity to defend himself. If the passenger had been summoned and examined, his innocence would have been proven, contends petitioner.

Petitioner further asserts that the Enquiry Officer failed to consider that the officer on duty at the immigration counter undergoes a thorough check and inventory of personal belongings, including cash; at the time of inventory, his personal cash was Rs. 210/- and no excess cash was found in his possession and the Enquiry Officer did not objectively assess the available evidence and failed to take into account admissions made by witnesses during cross-examination, which proved that petitioner was not at fault. No direct or reliable evidence was presented to support the charge of illegal gratification. The allegations regarding $300 payment for changing the date stamp are based solely on suspicion and probabilities. He therefore, made a detailed representation to the disciplinary authority, highlighting the lapses in the enquiry and failure to consider critical evidence that would have exonerated him. Despite this, the disciplinary authority by order dated 23.08.2016 imposed punishment of “RTSP” for two st