Insp. Prem Chand vs Govt. Of N.C.T. Of Delhi
2006 Latest Caselaw 703 Del

JUDGMENT

Mukul Mudgal, J.

1. Rule DB. With the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties, the writ petition is taken up for final hearing.

2. This writ petition filed by an Inspector of Delhi Police challenges the order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (in short 'CAT'), Delhi dated 15th February, 2005. The petitioner was charged with the following allegations:

It is alleged that you Inspector Prem Chand, No. D-I/413 while posted in A.C. Branch was detailed as raid officer on 10-10-97 on complaint of Sh. Kamlesh Kumar Gupta s/o shri Prabhu Dayal Gupta R/o WZ-71-B, Gali No.7, Lajwanti Garden, Delhi. The complainant brought the bribe money to the A.C. Branch, phenolphthalein powder was applied on these currency notes in the presence of panch witness Shri Devender Singh S/o Sh. Sukhir Singh, LDC E-III, Education Department, Old Sectt., Delhi. You, Inspr. Prem Chand, No. D-1/413 organized a raid on Sh. Preet Pal Bansal, Inspector Malaria, CLZ, MCD for demanding Rs. 3000/- as bribe. He got case FIR No. 40 dated 10-10-97 U/S 7/13 POC Act, P.s. A.c. Branch registered against Shri Preetpal Bansal Inspr. Malaria, CLZ MCD. The tainted money, although not accepted by the accused Sh. Preet Pal Bansal was not seized by you being the raid officer Inspr. Prem Chand despite being an important piece of evidence. The accused was acquitted by the Hon'ble Court of Shri S.S. Bal, Spl. Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi in the above noted case.

The above act on the part of you, Inspr. Prem Chand, No. D-1/413 amounts to gross misconduct, negligence and dereliction in the discharge of his official duties and rendering you liable for departmental action under Delhi Police (Punishment and Appeal) Rules 1980.

3. Subsequent to the said charge, the petitioner was found guilty and eventually punishment of forfeiture of one year approved service was imposed upon the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the above punishment by preferring an O.A. before the Tribunal which was rejected by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has given the following reasons for rejecting the O.A.:-

7. Once the money is not accepted that does not mean that the currency notes were not to be seized. It is common knowledge, as is apparent from the facts, that currency notes were the money that was being offered and phenolphthalein powder had been applied to them and it was the case property. The case property necessarily has to be seized.

8. Merely because if the learned Special Judge did not notice of this fact and had acquitted the said accused, that will not help the applicant in either way because the Court has not expressed any opinion that the currency notes were not required to be seized.

4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has contended as he did before the Tribunal that it was not part of his duty to seize the currency notes once the accused in a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act had declined to accept the proferred bribe money. We are of the view that this plea is not acceptable as the petitioner was in charge of raiding team and it was not for him to judge whether the notes ought to have been seized or not. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has been unable to demonstrate that any instructions or rules or regulations or practice of the Prevention of Corruption Department of police postulated that in case bribe money is not accepted, it is not required to be seized. We have also noted that in such a matter, if the plea of the petitioner is accepted and the accused not accepting the bribe money is to be a reason for not seizing the bribe money there was no need to launch prosecution against the accused. This not having been done resulted in the acquittal of the accused. The reasoning given by the Tribunal, therefore, does not warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that even if it is assumed that there is failure to seize the currency notes, this does not amount to misconduct. The Tribunal has analyzed various definitions of the word "misconduct" and we are in agreement with the conclusion of the Tribunal. Furthermore, misconduct need not be founded on a positive act but can also be based upon an omission of duty required to be done by the public servant. In this view of the matter, we are satisfied that no interference is called for under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.