Delhi High Court
Hardayal Singh vs The Commissioner Of Police & Ors. on 4 July, 2008
Author: J.R. Midha
*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+WP(C) No. 11526/2005
Reserved on: 14th May, 2008
%Date of Decision: 4th July, 2008
Hardayal Singh ...Appellant
Through: Mr. Praveen Kumar Pandey, Adv.
for Mr. R.P. Yadav, Adv.
Versus
The Commissioner of Police & Ors. ...Respondent
Through: Ms. Avnish Ahlawat with Ms. Nidhi
Gupta, Advs.
CORAM :-
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K.SIKRI
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
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?
J.R. Midha, J.
The petitioner was working as Head Constable in Delhi Police. In
September 1984, the petitioner enticed Ashok Kumar and three others
with the promise of sending them abroad with the help of an agent,
Sardar Ali for which he charged Rs. 8,000/- each from Ashok Kumar and
Boota Ram and Rs. 7,000/- from Amar Chand as advance. The
petitioner, with the help of Sardar Ali took the aforesaid persons to
Bombay and further charged Rs. 8,000/- each from Ashok Kumar and
Boota Ram and Rs. 7,000/- from Amar Chand on the pretext of medical
examination. The disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the
petitioner. The disciplinary authority awarded the punishment of
dismissal from service to the petitioner vide order dated 21 st May 1998.
The petitioner filed an appeal which was also rejected vide order dated
15th March 1999. After a gap of about three years, the petitioner filed OA
No. 314/2002 before the learned Tribunal which was disposed of on 7 th
February 2002 whereby the learned Tribunal set aside order of the
Appellate Authority with liberty to have the appeal decided by another
competent authority and liberty to the petitioner to take additional pleas.
The Appellate Authority passed a fresh order on 20th August 2002 again
dismissing the appeal of the petitioner which was challenged by the
petitioner in OA No. 472/2004. The learned Tribunal dismissed the OA
of the petitioner which is under challenge before us.
The main contention on behalf of petitioner is that the petitioner
has been falsely implicated in the matter and out of five prosecution
witnesses, only three witnesses supported the prosecution case and the
version of the petitioner was supported by the other two witnesses. The
petitioner further contends that his case was supported by five
witnesses. We find that the learned Tribunal has correctly examined
these submissions and have given a finding that there has been
sufficient material on record against the petitioner. We agree that the
findings of the Tribunal contained in paras 15 to 18 of the order which
are reproduced herein below:-
"15. The learned counsel, in all fairness, took us to read
the evidence and thereafter urged that the findings are
inconsistent and erroneous.
16. We have already referred to above the broad
principles on departmental proceedings and scope of
interference for judicial review. It is not a criminal trial.
Therefore, the findings necessarily could not be based
on material, which must show that the charge is proved
beyond all reasonable doubts. On propensity of
probabilities even such conclusions can be arrived.
17. The perusal of the report of the inquiry officer
clearly shows that there was other material on the
record, particularly the evidence of Shri Ashok Kumar,
PW-1 and Shri Boota Ram, PW-2. The findings cannot
be termed to be erroneous or that no reasonable person
can come to such a conclusion. In that view of the
matter, we find that it is not a fit case for judicial
review.
18. As regards the quantum of punishment, in a
disciplined force, such act indeed should be taken
seriously and consequently when such an act has
happened in the police force, we cannot think of any
other penalty but of dismissal."
We further note that the FIR was also registered against the
petitioner under Sections 420/120B IPC and Sections 24/25 of the
Emigration Act on 18th July 1985 which ultimately resulted in his
conviction by the Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 15th March
2003. Vide order dated 31st March 2003, the petitioner was sentenced to
undergo the rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months with a fine
of Rs. 3,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo
rigorous imprisonment for two months under Section 120 B IPC. The
petitioner was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
two months under Section 420 IPC. The petitioner challenged the
conviction and sentence in appeal which was dismissed by the Additional
Sessions Judge vide order dated 17th November 2003. The petitioner
filed the revision petition before this Hon'ble Court which was disposed of
vide judgment dated 29th August 2005. In the said revision, the
petitioner gave up the challenge to the order of conviction on merits and
confined the challenge only to question of sentence on the ground that he
had already undergone three months of sentence and had also deposited
the fine. The petitioner further submitted that he had superannuated
and was 65 years of age and he be given benefit under Section 360
Cr.P.C. and be released on probation. In view of the aforesaid statement,
the conviction order was upheld and the petitioner was released on
probation. We may further note that the petitioner expired during the
pendency of this petition on 9th December 2005 and his legal
representatives (LRs) were brought on record vide order dated 10th
January 2008.
For the reasons aforesaid, we do not find any infirmity in the
impugned order of the learned Tribunal. We, therefore, dismiss this
petition but without costs.
(J.R. MIDHA)
JUDGE
(A.K. SIKRI)
JUDGE
July 4, 2008
aj
