*

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+

W.P. (C.) No. 3538/2010

%

Date of Decision: 07.09.2010

RAVINDER KUMAR SHARMA

…. Petitioner

Through Mr.Arun Bhardwaj, Adv.

Versus

UOI AND ORS

…. Respondents

Through Mr.Anjum Javed, Adv.

CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOOL CHAND GARG

1.

Whether reporters of Local papers may be

allowed to see the judgment?

2.

To be referred to the reporter or not?

3.

Whether the judgment should be reported in

the Digest?

MOOL CHAND GARG, J. (ORAL)

*

1. Original Application No.2139/2008 filed by the respondent

Ravinder Kumar Sharma was dismissed by the Central Administrative

Tribunal Principal Bench New Delhi vide order dated 26.05.2009

which has been assailed by the petitioner before us by filing the

present writ petition for seeking a relief to set aside the order passed

by the disciplinary authority and allow OA as aforesaid.

2. It is his case that the petitioner had been serving Delhi Police

and was posted as SHO of P.S. Dwarka at the relevant time when he

was issued a show cause notice on the ground that:

“On 28.09.2006, a PCR call was received at PS Dwarka,

vide DD No. 9A to the effect that in front of Telephone

Exchange, Sector-6, Dwarka, a black colour bag was lying.

PCR van Z-80 attended the call and further transmitted the

details that two persons namely Raj Singh s/o Jai Singh and

2010:DHC:4376-DB

Vicky s/o Inder Singh have been caught with a motorcycle

and the bag containing illicit liquor. The PCR van handed

over the accused along with the motorcycle and the illicit

liquor to HC Tejpal Singh for further necessary action on

the part of local police. On perusal of the FIR by the

undersigned, it was observed that only one person with the

illicit liquor was booked, vide case FIR No. 814/06 u/s

61/1/14 Excise Act while the other accused along with the

motorcycle was let off. You did not point out this serious

lapse and only when the undersigned enquired into the

matter

from

the

SDPO,

this

shocking

instance

of

connivance of local police with the bootleggers came to

fore.”

3. Even though the petitioner submitted a reply denying the

allegations made in the show cause notice particularly to the aspect

that two persons were caught as stated in the show cause notice and

relying upon the FIR No.810/2006 dated 08.09.2006 which itself goes

to show that only one person was caught with the illicit liquor and was

arrested and as such there was no lack of supervision on his part or

any negligence. Yet the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of

censure upon the petitioner which was assailed by him by way of an

order dated 12.03.2007. The appeal against the aforesaid order was

dismissed.

4. It was therefore the petitioner filed OA before the Tribunal

bearing No.2139/2008 which as stated above has been dismissed

vide order dated 26.05.2009 which has been assailed by the

petitioner before us.

5. The FIR in this case was registered on the basis of a statement

made by Head Constable Warriyam Singh who was the in charge of

the PCR. His statement reads as under:

“Bayan-ajane HC Warriyam Singh No.650/PCR. I/C-Z/80

SOUTH WEST ZONE

Bayan-ajane kiya ki mein Delhi Police mein batoor HC

tainaat hoon aur batoor I/C Z-80/PCR Van par meri duty

raat 8 PM se 8 AM, aaj subah tak thie, samay karib 8 bajkar

eik minute par C/ROOM se ek call mili ki SEC-6 red light par

2010:DHC:4376-DB

ek kale rang ka bag rakhaa hein jis par mein hamrahi staff

mauka par pahonchah tau ek ladka kale rang ke bag ko

lekar khada thaa jo hame dekhkar bhagne laga jisko meine

HC ne hamrah staff ki madad se os ladke ko pakda tatha

bag check kiya to bag mein BONNIESCOT WHISKY sharab

ke pauvee bhare huyen thein jinko ginane par 120 pauvee

huin jo pratyek pauvee par 180 ML veih 42.8 V/V 75 PROOF

vah FOR SALE IN HARYANA ONLY likha hein jo bag malik ka

naam patah baad dariyaft Ram Singh